Current Events > Is the Witcher 3 worth playing if I haven't played 1 and 2?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like, I hear 3's really damn good, but I dunno if I want to play 3 whole games. I know I'll be lost in the story most likely, but is the game actually fun enough by itself to make up for that?

(I've seen the two seasons of the Netflix show, for whatever that's worth lmao)

Yes

it's been a while since I've played it, but in the beginning of TW3, there's a thing where you can recap over the events of the previous games, and make choices that Geralt might have made

I never played the first two games and I loved Witcher 3.

You absolutely do not need to play the other two. In fact they have remarkably little to do with 3, at all.

There's small start where you get to pick what you did in the last games IIRC
It's very minor

Yeah, you really don't need to.

also, I never played the first game, but I definitely recommend the second, if you ever get a chance to play it.

it's really good, IMO, and you need at least two playthroughs for the whole story.

Thanks, everyone!

I played witcher 3 without playing the other games and beat the main story and dlc

...made me research who is who as i got deeper in the game. Pretty much opened the world of witcher for me. Next i bought witcher 1 & 2 after playing witcher 3. Started playing witcher 1 just to get through its story and im anticipating witcher 2 a lot... but thats whenever it happens.

Then, i started reading the books as they go on sale in kindle.

And finally, the witcher on netflix. That pretty much all the witcher content i know and it is all from really getting into the witcher 3 game.

boxoto posted...

it's been a while since I've played it, but in the beginning of TW3, there's a thing where you can recap over the events of the previous games, and make choices that Geralt might have made

Yeah, but those questions wouldn't mean anything to you if you didn't play the second game >_>

St0rmFury posted...

Yeah, but those questions wouldn't mean anything to you if you didn't play the second game >_>

true, lol.

I still feel it's worth playing through, though.

iirc, stuff like oils/toxins have more importance, and it ended up feeling more strategic...but my memory is pretty hazy.

boxoto posted...

iirc, stuff like oils/toxins have more importance, and it ended up feeling more strategic...but my memory is pretty hazy.

Yeah, potions are more accurate to the lore in the first 2 games. You have to drink them in advance in preparation of what's coming instead of insta-chugging them in the middle of combat.

It should've been designed as an entry point because 1 shouldn't be forced on anyone.

Witcher 1 and 2 are sorta divorced from the overall Witcher mythos. Like they use the world from the books and a few characters but that is about it. 3 feels a lot more like a sequel to the books. Brings in a lot more characters and story elements. This works out for new players because a) it doesn't rely much on the first two games and b) realizes that most people aren't familiar with the books so it does a solid job of explaining who everyone is.

So you can jump into W3 without needing to have read any books or played the other games.

I played it without having played the first two. There's a bit at the beginning where it asks you some questions about what happened in 2 that I had to look up because I wanted the full context, but other than that I had no problems.