CD Projekt RED"s 3rd Witcher combines the series" non-linear storytelling through a sprawling open civilization that concludes the saga of Geralt of Rithrough.

You are watching: Is the witcher 1 worth playing


*

*

I"m not sure I fully understand also but yes you deserve to more than likely skip the Witcher 1 for a selection of various factors.


*

As for exactly how a lot one"s savegames from Witcher 1 & 2 will affect 3, I can"t comment given that I just do not recognize. But, I will say that when it pertains to the first 2 games, I actually appreciated the story in 1 more than I did in 2. However before, gameplay-wise I thought 2 was much better (largely the combat).

I am sure you have the right to just skip 1 (and probably 2 as well) and also be just fine playing 3, yet given that both the older games cost alongside nopoint these days and also frequently pop up in GOG and Steam sales; if you have the time I"d say go for it. Regardless of some fregulations and also klunky bits, both are excellent RPGs in their very own best, giving plenty of hours of fun.



*

I"m replaying the initially game appropriate currently. I extremely doubt any story decisions will certainly affect Witcher III in any way. However, it"s still a really great (and also fairly weird) RPG. It doesn"t really play rather choose anypoint else. I"m surprised at just how much I"m enjoying it on a second playthrough many type of years later.


If you have time I would certainly recommend playing 1 and also 2. While the options will certainly probably be even more of a nod to witcher fans and a couple of minor scenes I would certainly still recommfinish it. And while w2 is a far better game , the original is even more atmospheric and felt the atmospheres and searches were even more personal and also grounded. And the original sore is so much better than the second one. So like I sassist if you have 60+ hours for both games before W3 provide it a shot. It creates Geralt that he is and such.

Keep in mind that the first one is rather 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 favor W1 far even more than W2 also if the gameplay part of it is not as great.


I tried to play the initially Witcher game and also couldn"t gain right into it for some factor. I just offered up 6 hours in.

I check out a story summary online and jumped directly into 2 and loved it.


I"m presently playing the Witcher 1 for the first time. It is a really slow-moving begin, it took till act 2 to get me hooked, yet currently that I realized what the game actually is it"s amazing. The game isn"t for everyone, however I"d say play witcher 1 atleast until, and a little of, act 2.


Your choices are so unlikely to issue it is beyond unvital to play it. They bacount mattered in Witcher 2. Also yes, the gameplay is actually pretty negative so it is worth skipping for that as well. If you really want an appreciation for what is going on in witcher 3 and the characters affiliated you need to check out the books, not play the games.


If you like the initially game, you should complete it. It"s pretty cool. But yeah as far as selections and conserves go, you could too skip it.


Your options are so unlikely to issue it is past uncrucial to play it. They bacount mattered in Witcher 2.


Yeh for story and also worldstate factors theres no must play 1 and also 2. 1 is the much better game but the gameplay in 2 is more than likely a lot the exact same as in 3 so if you wanna get in mood for TW3 play some TW2.


The only reason to play the initially game is if you desire to know even more around the lore and the civilization. That"s a decision you can conveniently make later on after you"ve finimelted the Witcher 2 considering that I can not view that your decisions would play right into the second game at all anymethod. What I enjoyed of the Witcher 1 was greatly the story and also finding out even more around the civilization, however I additionally found it to be a little bit of a slog after a while. It"s not specifically a short game, IIRC.


Shouldn"t we have learned by currently that story selections do not really suppose anything. If you desire to know the story, you have to play both games.

You additionally shouldn"t skip one and play two. One is a much better game. The story is better and also I like the gameplay. It"s a small clunky however it"s unique and works well once you figure it out. In the second one they made it more in line via exactly how eexceptionally other 3rd perchild game plays.


I really can"t say what"s going to lug over into this game"s story yet.

Anymeans, I think 2 is much better than 1 (which is really excellent in some locations and extremely flawed in others). Not that 2 is perfect but in its entirety I think it"s absolutely much better and also even more approachable. If you have actually the moment and also really desire to go back to 1 it"s constantly tbelow.

Obviously some 1 fans in this thcheck out yet in its entirety I"d say it"s much less famous. My best worry was it was the pacing and I thought it was too long. I"m guessing more points from 2 lug over (from story to selections to gameplay mechanics).


I think it"s worth playing the Witcher 1 on simple simply for the story. The combat is not excellent, and also playing it on easy is pretty much the exact same game through quicker combat (and also much less possibility of losing, naturally).

It"s also perfectly fine to skip the Witcher 1, honestly.


Witcher 1 had excellent story and also it set the world better than the W2. Also Witcher 1 feels even more like a witcher kind of adundertaking - at leastern comparing to the first book stories. I doubt that the choices lug over in any kind of coherent method.

How about the books? Sword of Destiny was excellent arrival to the human being of the witcher and also the Last Wish has actually necessary chapter relating to the W3.


artisanbreads: Its much less famous becousage it was a relativly unknown game which noone played. Its the Demon souls of the souls series. Many people that recommends 2 over 1 either "tried" to play 1 after playing 2 many type of years after its release or they didnt play it at all. Like
punched said the combat is bad in both games yet at leastern its unique in 1. I dont suppose the combat to be incredibly great in 3 either.


artisanbreads: Its less famous becouse it was a relativly unrecognized game which noone played. Its the Demon souls of the souls series. Most world that recommends 2 over 1 either "tried" to play 1 after playing 2 many kind of years after its release or they didnt play it at all. Like
punched sassist the combat is poor in both games however at least its distinct in 1. I dont mean the combat to be exceptionally great in 3 either.


No I played it appropriate as soon as it came out and also then played 2. I think there"s plenty to not favor in 1. I choose the combat in 2 a lot more, also though it ends up being recurring.

Not saying it"s a poor game as a whole but there"s pretty significant worries through it to me.


artisanbreads: I was commenting on TW1 being all at once much less popular not your stance on it. You made good arguments and theres nothing wrong with placing 2 above 1 if thats just how you feel.


Th question of story and choice consequence has been answered but I simply wanted to post to say that I much preferred Witcher 1 at the end of the day. It feels old and also has its flegislations, yet once you play for a little bit and also acquire previous some antiquated aspects, I feel it"s a lot more rewarding of an suffer. Also someexactly how I really preferred the combat, which I recognize isn"t the a lot of famous opinion.


I haven"t played 2 yet so no comment on that one. I completed the initially one a pair years earlier and also have to admit that I pumelted myself to beat it because I didn"t want to leave it unfinimelted. That said, I did enjoy playing through the initially fifty percent or 3/4 of the game. To be hoswarm, I just bought the second one bereason it dropped down to $5 and also I thought, "Hey, it"s worth it to me to attempt it out for a pair hours for five bucks." After looking into reviews more, I"m fairly excited at this suggest. I simply set up it yesterday for the initially time. (I"ve been working through a backlog of games.)


I think I would certainly have actually preferred The Witcher 1 even more if it wasn"t for that dumb Alvin subplot. (Which led into the even dumber twist ending.)

It kinda reminded me of somepoint choose Skyrim, in that the the majority of interesting stuff happened to the side of the story. The primary plot was pretty throwaway and forgettable. It"s pretty great at civilization building, but it most likely will not be that appropriate to 3.

That being sassist, I did gain it enough that I almost immediately went out and bought the first Witcher book after finishing it, so take that for what you will.


You must play The Witcher just to view exactly how a lot of an development The Witcher 2 is. Take from that what you will.


I preferred the Witcher 1 quite a little bit, and favored the Witcher 2 a little less so. 1 felt exceptionally distinctive, nothing else prefer it.


I can understand wanting to skip the initially one, I had actually to pressure myself to play the game up until the last chapter (possibly second to last?) when shit hit the fan and points acquired exciting.

But you will miss out on out on avenues to make allies which will certainly help you in the sequel. I"m guessing the deafult begin on Witcher 2 assumes you"ve made no good friends in the first game. It will still be a fun game though. Go ahead and also skip 1 if you want.

See more: Which Of The Following Are Correct For Zero Order Reactions, Which Of The Following Are Correct For Zero


I never played 2 but best currently i"m playing via the first game, about 8 hours in and it has definitely been a great suffer so far. you must obtain it, it"s on sale pretty regularly too, i got it for around 1€ or somepoint favor that.


I just finished The Witcher 2 aobtain. I initially played it near the end of 2013; this was before I bought the first on Steam, as I had actually bought the initially last year, and also had simply beat it on Monday. While I would say you don"t need to play it; that goes for either of them really, I would fully recommend you play both. I think you"d obtain even more out of the endure if you played both. Just playing The Witcher 2 aobtain, I had completely forgot most the story, so I am happy I replayed it, and I appreciated the story and characters a little more as a result of playing the initially. I am really happy I played both the initially two games. I"m ready for three now :). That said, I"ll have to use the Bard (or whoever before the character will certainly be) that implements my options from the initially 2 games into three, bereason I played the first on Steam, The Witcher 2 on 360, and also I"ll more than likely be playing 3 on the PS4. If I were you, I"d regret not playing the first, however that"s me. Also, I thought both had better qualities to them over the various other, so neither of them were as a whole much better than the various other I think. I should say the initially takes time to acquire into though; I had actually played it on and off in short bursts beforehand, but it finally clicked at some suggest, particularly given that I wanted to watch it via before 3. I recommfinish skipping the contract missions.