The Witcher 3 has really piqued my interest, but I don't know whether or not to get the previous two games. My main is concern is that I won't be able to jump into the third without knowing what's happened previously. Is it worth getting them?
Is it worth getting The Witcher 1 and 2?
- Thread starter Drops a Sweet Katana
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you can handle veeeery slow pacing and a combat system that is just above Neverwinter Nights, for the sake of a great story and an interesting world, get both games.
If you just want a great, gorgeous cinematic RPG, just jump into Witcher 2.
Both games are worth playing imo, but some people are just put off by Witcher 1
If you just want a great, gorgeous cinematic RPG, just jump into Witcher 2.
Both games are worth playing imo, but some people are just put off by Witcher 1
Try em and find out, it's not like they're all that expensive these days. Witcher 2 was going for around 6 bucks just the other day on gog.com and Witcher 1 around half that, you could have both games for less than the cost of a decent lunch.
For what little it's worth I really like them, but then there's others on these forums that will happily say they're crap so I'd say just pick em up and decide for yourself.
For what little it's worth I really like them, but then there's others on these forums that will happily say they're crap so I'd say just pick em up and decide for yourself.
The Witcher 1 is a really immersive RPG about being a monster hunter. I got so immersed that I was really role-playing the game as Geralt. It's very expansive and has a slow moving, yet intriguing story, full of twists and turns. I personally loved it.
The Witcher 2 is a standard Mass Effect style RPG, with an expansive yet faster moving story, better combat, stronger characters and beautiful set pieces.
Both are worth a pick up, but if you don't enjoy 1, just start 2 asap.
The Witcher 2 is a standard Mass Effect style RPG, with an expansive yet faster moving story, better combat, stronger characters and beautiful set pieces.
Both are worth a pick up, but if you don't enjoy 1, just start 2 asap.
Witcher 2
The good: dark, complex story and great atmosphere; great graphics (even on xbox game); your choices did really matter.
The bad: character development is rather basic; the fighting system is underwhelming (mass spamming fireballs later in the game); the last act isn't as good as the stuff before.
I really liked the game, but i'm also a fan of the book, so i'm probably biased. Imo it really depends on whether your priorities are story and atmosphere (great) or game play mechanics (not so great).
Also, if you decide to play, there are semi-offical mods for both games that (based on the change log) seem to address a lot of the problems that people had with the games.
The good: dark, complex story and great atmosphere; great graphics (even on xbox game); your choices did really matter.
The bad: character development is rather basic; the fighting system is underwhelming (mass spamming fireballs later in the game); the last act isn't as good as the stuff before.
I really liked the game, but i'm also a fan of the book, so i'm probably biased. Imo it really depends on whether your priorities are story and atmosphere (great) or game play mechanics (not so great).
Also, if you decide to play, there are semi-offical mods for both games that (based on the change log) seem to address a lot of the problems that people had with the games.
They are both great games but they aren't for everyone. Most people either really like them or think they're garbage, or at least, people on the internet seem to think that way. Both games can be had for fairly cheaply so what's the harm in getting both (during GoG's summer sale both could be had for about $10 and it likely be the same for the Steam Summer Sale usually during the middle of July).
They are both great games but they aren't for everyone. Both games can be had for fairly cheaply so what's the harm in getting both?
They are both great games but they aren't for everyone. Both games can be had for fairly cheaply so what's the harm in getting both?
What? Combat system just above Neverwinter Nights?Norrdicus said:
I think that
i personally enjoyed both, but it's been a while since i've dived into them so it's hard for me to recall hard details on the games.
is the best person as of recent to tell you why or why not to get neither/one/both of the games.Bara_no_Hime said:
i personally enjoyed both, but it's been a while since i've dived into them so it's hard for me to recall hard details on the games.
If you can afford them I'd get them both. The overarching story is kind of important to understanding Geralt's character if nothing else. That said, Witcher 2 was pretty good at easing people into the world and lore if you hadn't played the first; I can't imagine they won't do the same with the third.
Other people have covered the gameplay. Personally, I didn't like the first but enjoyed the second. Your mileage may vary.
Other people have covered the gameplay. Personally, I didn't like the first but enjoyed the second. Your mileage may vary.
In my opinion, The Witcher is painfully awkward and dull. The gameplay is on a level of terribleness that my mind cannot even comprehend. I gave up when I was beginning to think that Final Fantasy X isn't so offensively boring after all! Just imagine that craziness.
The second is better, barely interesting but kinda playable. Between the forgettable story and clunky combat, you can take a deep breath and enjoy the pretty scenery. Just try to forget that Geralt is still there... alive and stuff.
As you can see, I'm not a big fan, but these games are unique enough to be worth a look (at the right price). They're improving, I'm curious and cautious about the next one.
The second is better, barely interesting but kinda playable. Between the forgettable story and clunky combat, you can take a deep breath and enjoy the pretty scenery. Just try to forget that Geralt is still there... alive and stuff.
As you can see, I'm not a big fan, but these games are unique enough to be worth a look (at the right price). They're improving, I'm curious and cautious about the next one.
I played both of them earlier this year. The first one isn't too bad but it's a bit of a slog to get through. The mediocre voice acting and the fact that all the NPCs seem to faff about aimlessly didn't really immerse me at all in it. The second one is a gorgeous game that was fun. The combat can be frustratingly difficult at times and the alchemy system is ineffective but ultimately, The Witcher 2 is worth your time if you're seriously considering its upcoming sequel.
Both The Witcher are very cheap on GOG.com at the moment. Both are Enhanced Editions with additional free content DLCs, free soundtracks, game art and other nice stuff.
For a questions of 12 bucks, support the developers and buy both games. I did the same - maybe I won't play them, but I support good game devs regardless of anything else.
For a questions of 12 bucks, support the developers and buy both games. I did the same - maybe I won't play them, but I support good game devs regardless of anything else.
Just skip the first one, you're not missing much. The writing is nothing short of atrocious, and the voice acting isn't much better. The combat system is only one step above watching paint dry, and the pacing is extremely bad. You may not understand 100% of everything at the beginning of #2, but it's better than enduring the first game.
I'm actually wondering the same thing at the moment - noticed how cheap The Witcher 2 is at the moment and have noted that a lot of respectable, smart and attractive people seem to think it's a fantastic game. Here's my dilemma though:
I played about 30 hours of the first game (got some of the way into Act 3) and in the end I gave up. Partly it was the slow pace, partly it was the clunky interface, partly it was the soul-crushing grind of the combat. Partly it was the way the AI cheated like an utter bastard at dice poker.
But above all else, I gave it away because I couldn't stand Geralt as a character - by the start of Act 3 I couldn't have cared less whether he lived or died, whether he got his memories back or whether he got his mutagens or whatever back. That's why I gave up.
So my question is does he get any more bearable in the second game?
I played about 30 hours of the first game (got some of the way into Act 3) and in the end I gave up. Partly it was the slow pace, partly it was the clunky interface, partly it was the soul-crushing grind of the combat. Partly it was the way the AI cheated like an utter bastard at dice poker.
But above all else, I gave it away because I couldn't stand Geralt as a character - by the start of Act 3 I couldn't have cared less whether he lived or died, whether he got his memories back or whether he got his mutagens or whatever back. That's why I gave up.
So my question is does he get any more bearable in the second game?
Im not gonna lie i got into the third act of the Witcher 1 and just got so bored i stoppped playing it, i hear the 4th and 5th acts were good but the second and third just crawled to a god damn halt.
The Witcher 2 however is in my honest opinion, the best game i have ever had the fortune to play. Its well paced, very well written, its god damn gorgeous even on low settings and the combat is alot of fun
The Witcher 2 however is in my honest opinion, the best game i have ever had the fortune to play. Its well paced, very well written, its god damn gorgeous even on low settings and the combat is alot of fun
We've got a cultural expert here! I just wonder, what makes it garbage? One of the best implementations of non-linear story? One of the best implementations of long-running consequences? Unique designs? Best link to the books? Let me guess: you also prefer Oblivion over Morrowind because of combat system!hazabaza1 said:
The combat system of which one? Combat in the first one took some getting used to and relied on timing and rhythm, once you got the rhythm down and a few skill points assigned I found combat was pretty fun. In TW2, combat was damn hard even at the easier difficulties, and relied on a lot of blocking and dodging, as well as use of tactics. If your opponent had a shield, for example, just hammering at it head-on would not get you anywhere, you had to fight smarter than that. And it only took a few hits to kill you even after you had leveled up and improved, which I liked. It meant you had to keep mobile all the time, just standing still and chopping at anyone coming near was pretty much guaranteed to get you killed. I love the combat system of both of them, though I do prefer it in the second game.franticfarken said:
I enjoyed the second one a lot. I did feel lost in the lore a few times since I didn't get the backstory from the first one, but I just pretended that was what was supposed to happen, which resulted in being amazed and in wonder about the world more often than the setting actually merits.
It also took me 6 tries to actually get past the very first section. I gather there's tutorials now to make this easier but it was part of the appeal then.
I played it through once, purely for the story and the challenge and really, the game's a work of art with a few blemishes. Get it on sale, give it a chance and play it through to the end. If only to encourage the dev that was outspokenly anti-drm.
It also took me 6 tries to actually get past the very first section. I gather there's tutorials now to make this easier but it was part of the appeal then.
I played it through once, purely for the story and the challenge and really, the game's a work of art with a few blemishes. Get it on sale, give it a chance and play it through to the end. If only to encourage the dev that was outspokenly anti-drm.