Board 8 > Are Witcher 1/2 crucial to the lore, or can someone jump straight into 3?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Witcher 3 Complete Edition is $15 on the PS4 store - I kinda wanna take the plunge since it's universally considered a game of the gen candidate... but maybe not if I need to play the first two.
---

Hmmm I guess instead of saying crucial to the "lore", I should ask if they're crucial to the main plot of the third game. I'm sure I'll miss tons of little lore tidbits that fans of the first two games would pick up on.
---

No. You can jump in. There are a couple of references to the first two but it's pretty much separate.
---

You should be able to jump in. Characters and events appear and are referenced from the books and first two games, the second one especially, but there's a character tab in the menu screen that fills in most of the blanks. From what I can tell, there are many references throughout the game, but most of it is of the Easter egg variety and off-hand comments.
---

There are a ton of references to both the prior games and the books, but unless you have an impeccable memory, a lot of them youll have to google anyway.

The biggest loss is the pre-existing familiarity with Geralts closest friends.
---

Familiarity with the two closest lady friends will be a little lost on you, but I only had an introductory familiarity with them and it didn't bother me too much. It mostly pertains to some side quests.

Just go in and have a good time. It's a way better game than 1 or 2 unless you like your action rpg's to be super punishing tactics games.
---

1 was a little awkward. 2 I thought was quite worth playing.
---

Totally fine to just play 3
---

Another question worth asking
Are Witcher 1 and 2 worth playing? did they age like milk?
---

Nanis23 posted...

Are Witcher 1 and 2 worth playing? did they age like milk?

Witcher 1 is a pain in the ass to play. It has aged like milk left outside in the heat for a while.

Witcher 2 was a flawed game that can be boring and tedious at times but overall it is ok. Even though I never saw the game all the way through I can see people loving this style of game enjoying it.

Now Witcher 3, it is possibly the best WRPG I have played besides Mass Effect 2. It has aged like fine wine even though that wine has been only 4 years.

Witcher 3 is intended to be newbie-friendly. I had only played Witcher 2 before jumping in, which helped a bit, but nothing tremendous. It warms you up to Geralt and I enjoyed his growth between the two games, and it provides a strong understanding of several key characters/settings in W3 (characters from W2: Triss, Dandelion, Zoltan, Roche).

W3 is either my #1 or #2 favorite game. Alongside the expansion packs, it's a phenomenal journey.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The biggest loss is the pre-existing familiarity with Geralts closest friends.

This is the reason to play through the other Witcher games. The game is beginner friendly and the main narrative doesn't (often) touch on what happened in previous games or books, but the strongest moments in the first half of the game play off your history with the cast. The game is full of small, intimate moments, but it's richer if you understand the wistfulness or nostalgia when you reconnect with certain characters.

Peridiam posted...

W3 is either my #1 or #2 favorite game. Alongside the expansion packs, it's a phenomenal journey.

And yeah, taken as a full package, what the Witcher accomplishes with its story is unparalleled in games this gen. If you're worried you only have time to play The Witcher 3 w/ expansions (which is a huge 100+ hour commitment), just bite the bullet and jump in. If you have the ability to go back, however, do it.
---

I played Witcher 1 recently for the first time and I thought it still played well. Combat was definitely antiquated and overly simple but I still enjoyed it because of the characters and setting.
---

I'll add on to the pile to say you dont need to play 1 or 2.

Theyre side quests in the series greater lore.

On top of that, the writing in 3 is actually good, which means all characters are properly and naturally introduced with enough context.

I found the witcher 1 completely unplayable and didn't try to start 2
---

The Witcher 1 is fine until you have to spend 8 hours in a swamp. That's kinda where the game slows down a little, but the rest is enjoyable. Make sure you have a good PC though, because the engine is yikes.
---

Does 2 play more like 1 or 3?
---

Its more like 2, Geralt being a little slower IIRC

---

?
---

Honestly, just watch the noclip doc (there's not a lot of spoilers iirc)
---

maybe this is just me but I thought 3 actually felt like a sequel to the books while the first two games felt more like side stories that weren't really that important compared to everything else
---

Jakyl25 posted...

?

Oops I meant 3, lol.

---

I just played 1 last month, which was my first engagement with the franchise. People are overstating how badly it's aged - either that or they just have no stomach for old fashioned WRPGs. That said, the pacing is really bad at times and it has some pretty insulting degrees of backtracking. I'm definitely glad to have played it but if you're undecided there are a bunch of mods that introduce big quality of life improvements to ease the journey.
---

Witcher 1 has aged like....into a charming game. Not for everyone, takes a while to get into, but once past the clunkiness it's a very playable game.
---

I'm just saying, you can bang someone in the Witcher 1 way sooner than in the other games.

---

It's not to everyone's tastes, but I ended up really liking TW1's combat. Once you get the rhythm of each fighting style down, it's a lot of fun. So much so, in fact, that I ended up having trouble adjusting to TW2's more 'normal' combat. I finished that game still feeling that I was missing an important trick to fight more efficiently.

The UI and journal in TW1 are shit, but then that's pretty much consistent throughout the series. Full of quests that are actually subquests of other quests with no indication that you can't progress in one until you've done another one that doesn't appear connected yet... it's a mess.
---

Witcher 2 has my favorite combat in the series, but I will admit that Witcher 3 is a better game in every way. I'll echo Icon here and say that if you can, play 1 and 2, but if you only have time for one, play 3.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I'm just saying, you can bang someone in the Witcher 1 way sooner than in the other games.

And collect their sex card!
---

Also regarding Witcher 1:

Triss > Shani
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also regarding Witcher 1:

Triss > Shani

I went with Shani the first time I played the game. Then went back played it going with Triss and never looked back. Though I feel Geralt would canonically choose Yennefer over Triss, based on all the Witcher media I have consumed, I feel Triss is a far better and healthier pairing for Geralt.
---

backtracking in the swamp is what kills TW1

Geralt taking up 40% of the camera is what kills TW2

still incredibly solid games
---

You can jump in, you need to know some things from previous games (and the books) but nothing a Wikipedia summary won't solve.

However, you absolutely should play 1 and 2 because they are great games and will enhance your experience a lot. 1 has some issues. As others have said it's janky in spots, the UI is bad, etc.. Most of the sexual content is pretty cringy as well. Also it is entirely possible to lock yourself out of side stuff without realising. However at its core is a really solid RPG with some good writing and fun systems. Then 2 is just a great game by any stretch, and easy to get into. Definitely far closer to 3 than it is to 1.
---

Reading this topic has inspired me to get on board with it

The fact that it's the third game has always put me off playing it but I guess I'll try it now...someday, anyway

---

Decided to jump straight into 3 - thanks everyone!

---