Current Events > i wanna get into the Witcher. do i need to play 1 and 2?

(+) Yeah! (+)

or is 3 fine. or maybe just 2 and 3?
---

need to? no. should you? yeh. 2 at least.
---

Skip 1 and Play 2

Just watch a recap of the first game on youtube
---

If you want to do it before 3. 3 is so much better that you'll never be able to go back to the first ones.
---

1 is a bit dated. 2 can be seen as dated depending on your personal threshold for these types of things.

3 definitely will make reference to events and/or characters that are featured in each title. In fact, most characters in 3 Geralt has already met in some capacity, so you won't appreciate the context of their relationship.

You can kind of infer a lot of it, and 3 can be played as a stand-alone title. Worst case, there is a pretty extensive index you can read about character's backgrounds.

But realistically, it's like the difference of making a 9/10 game a 10/10 game just because of the richness. Even without 1 and 2, it'll still be an awesome experience. I started with 3. It's a bit harder to go back to 2 from a gameplay point of view, but kind of interesting treating it as a "prequel" of sorts.
---

I'd recommend at least giving the first two a shot, but playing them isn't vital to your understanding of 3. The first game is pretty janky and second, while much more polished, still has some rough spots.
---

3 departs from the continuity of the first two for the most part which is frustrating.

Combat in Witcher 1 is extremely outdated and chapter 2 is a slog, but overall I do not regret the experience at all. The game is really good at drawing you into the world and making you care in a way that many games are incapable of. There is a surprising amount of variance in certain quests and it's completely possible to fuck up and make a 'wrong' decision at which point you live with the consequences. There is a lot of lore to be uncovered, books are interesting to read even if they don't have gameplay effects. It's just really well written and engaging and as a result the dated gameplay isn't even that big of a deal (especially since Geralt will cut straight through most stuff if he's using the right sword, this is true IIRC until end game but at that point you have a lot of level ups and money so it's not a big deal). One thing I'll say is that doing the monster killing contracts is not really a big concern or deal, just do important stuff and any interesting side things. But yeah, you SHOULD NOT MISS THIS GAME. Lots of people say to blow it off probably because they only played W3

Witcher 2 really evolves the gameplay, in fact I'd argue that gameplay in W2 is better than W3 (in W3 all you have to is spam Aard and then hit X for instant kill, and that's on Death March the triple high difficulty, combat is pretty laughable in that game) since in W2 spells behave more like true abilities rather than almost MMO-like debuffs that they are in W3. There are interesting side quests to do in the game but besides that the main plot is pretty pressing and interesting. There's two large divergences in the plot, one has you fight for a mixed people promise land while the other is much sadder, gritty and tragic.

Again they are both fantastic games, neither should be missed.
---

You should do everything humanly possible to avoid any contact with the first Witcher game.
---

My opinions:

PLAY Witcher 1:
+ It's the best written of the three. Decisions you make have a very subtle ripple effect that carries through to the end of the game. 2 and 3 also let you make decisions, but they tend to be more immediate and on the nose.
+ Sex cards.
+ If you actually pay attention to books and notes and lore in games, then you'll get a lot of information about various factions and characters in 1 that you won't necessarily get in 2 or 3 (they'll have journal entries so you have a basic understanding of what or who they are, but you'll still probably have questions).

- Combat isn't bad, it's just simple and monotonous. I would not say it's dated (to me that sounds like it's broken or flawed). It's just... really redundant (drink a potion, wax up your blade, click click click).
- Level up / skill system is more convoluted than it needed to be. Because of these two factors I recommend playing it on Easy just for the story.
- There's no fast travel. The maps aren't huge but you still gotta cross 'em. If you're playing on PC, definitely get a movement speed mod.

PLAY Witcher 2:

+ Combat is better, but still kinda clunky. It plays more like a modern third person action RPG now, at least.
+ Lots of branches in the story.
+ Adds back story to the characters from 1 which will help your understanding of who they are in 3. Also introduces new characters who are in 3 and of course sets up some of the events of 3 (though I wouldn't say it directly rolls in to 3, just nice backstory).

- Eh, if there's a negative to this game it's that Geralt feels like a clunky tank version of Batman. Also the story is focused on a more personal level than 1 or 3 (the scope feels less grand).

Can you hop in to 3 right away and enjoy it and if you care enough read about the characters in the journal? Yes. It's very well written and was kind of designed as a starting point for people. But so are 1 and 2, and you do get more from 3 if you play 1 and 2 first.

ALSO, if you do care about story (and you like reading in general) then at a minimum please read the first two books. They are anthologies of short stories, and they also will introduce characters that are in 3 that aren't even in 1 or 2. AND, it explains the backstory to some of the events in the games (such as the Striga that Geralt fights in 1).
---

imo witcher 1 was an amazing game.

I didnt enjoy the 2nd one quite as much

Still havent played the 3rd, even though Ive owned it for years lol
---