What do you think about The Witcher?

Awhile ago, I purchased The Witcher: Enhanced Edition and The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Enhanced Edition on Steam. I have heard great things about these games in regards to the overall game design and direction of the story. The games have been sitting in my backlog for quite sometime until recently I decided to try out The Witcher. After about 3 hours, I am not sure what to think about the game. According to howlongtobeat.com the game takes about 36 hours to beat so I have a long way to go. But based on my first impression of the game, man it is just not all that exciting. I mean sure, so far I triggered a sex scene but that's about as far as the excitement goes. Gerald goes from quest to quest talking to each person in a monotone. Figuring out what you need to do in each quest isn't as simple as finding the red dot on your radar, if there is one, but even then there are not alot of real clues to help you out from there. The combat isn't exactly the most captivating thing in the world, I mean basically you pick a stance and do the same three hit combo over and over again for what seems to be every enemy. What do you think? Was The Witcher worth finishing? Should I just skip this one and go for The Witcher 2 or 3?

I can't comment personally on the first game, I never played it. But from what I've heard and read, CDPR improved a lot of elements in the second game, and eventually the 3rd too. I'd personally just skip the first (maybe read up on the story to get you up to speed), and try the second.

But IMO, and I know some will disagree, the 3rd game is the quintessential Witcher experience.

the first game can drag on. The combat isnt brilliant either. There are some cool parts, that are scary and/or exciting. Always going in to the graveyard in Vizima, or the swamps always made me uneasy. If you skip the first one, you wont miss much. there are a couple references and some important characters that are in the other 2 games, but you can get introduced to these characters in the other games without too much hassle. Just remember that the Scoia'tael is a non-human group, fighting for rights. theyre important in the 2nd game, but kinda no where in the 3rd. they have a camp in a forest, and thats about it.

the second game really sets up the third game. The combat is much better, and the overall design is a lot better. However the second game felt short to me, and more like a Prologue to the third than proper chapter in the witcher series. Your introduced to a lot more realms, which imo get kinda jumbled together, especially in the last act, and you kinda get lost as to which Northern realm is fighting which.

The Third game is where it's at. When i finished it, i was glad that i played the other 2, but at the same time i felt that it wasnt necessary to have played the other 2.

its your call to make. Give # 2 a try, if you like it, awesome, push onwards. If not, go to #3 that's the full witcher experience imo

I just started The Witcher 3 on my Twitch channel yesterday as I heard such great things about it but I am really struggling with it. It has a VERY steep learning curve. It is the most complicated game I have ever played. The amount of menus and game mechanics to learn and remember is like learning a new language. I am moving along slow but it is interesting. It does give you a great deal of freedom to go and do what you want.

I have not played the other Witcher games and I will tell you I am pretty lost with the story. I thought it would be a stand alone experience, a fine entry point for anybody, but it actually seems like you need to be steeped in the lore of this universe. It's deep. It's like watching Lord of the Rings Return of the King without having seen or having any knowledge of the first 2 movies.

I wish I started with the first game.

Its important to play the first if you wanna know the story, but from what I understand, the gameplay isnt the greatest. I played only 2 and 3, and they're both great on their own merits. 3 is the best though, because the gameplay is leagues better, and the story is incredibly done. 2 has a more focused narrative, but the gameplay has a few issues that hold it back grom greatness.

Ugh dude, I tried getting through the first game but that gameplay is straight booty. I uninstalled it, watched a youtube playthrough for story and went straight to pt 2 which was a whole galaxy better in every single way.

3 is church. One of the dopest games ever.

I never played the first game, so I can't comment on it, but I think even The Witcher 3 is boring with terrible combat and movement controls.

Yeah, the learning curve is pretty steep. It took me a while to get a handle on things. My first few hours I was on "sword and story" but due to not knowing much about how to play, I found myself in deep water.

Then I decided to play in "story only" and I learned quite allot about the game - but then it got too easy so I started a new game again in "sword and story".

Now I'm finding the game pretty easy.

IMO TW1 (enhanced) is better than TW2. I think TW2 gets bogged down in intrigue, combat that plays like you're driving a boat on land, and surprisingly small and restricted areas. It feels very linear, with the saving grace being the branching in the story.

TW1 Enhanced is ugly, and has a weird (but functional) combat approach, but it felt like a more natural, gritty, and contiguous world than TW2.

TW3 is fantastic - my only issue is some of the depth of the plot is lost from the tighter non-open-world narrative experience offered in TW1+2. I feel like this is unavoidable given the immense open world where they don't control where you are and who you are interacting with as tightly, but it's just one of those things where the game is basically better in every single way than its predecessors except for offering a less tight and deep narrative - and that's a shame.

I can't help but feel like the story in TW3 in general probably feels generic without an existing knowledge of the characters and conflicts coming out of playing the earlier games. I suspect newcomers jumping straight into TW3 would have trouble becoming attached to the characters or caring about their motives based solely on how they are presented in TW3

I thought 1 was pretty good, 2 was awesome, and I still have not beaten 3. Lost my level 18 saves twice, so that's the reason, I guess. So much dialogue, still pretty great though, with the enhanced edition mod and a couple others, it's insanely tough.

first game is dated as hell at this point, but it might be enjoyable to some extent. The main selling point, for me at least, was the game world; I loved the down-right corrupt, sick, depressing medieval-meets-fantasy world of it. Like, all the worst parts of man's history--persecution, witch hunts, racism, genocide, war, etc--get's mixed in with high fantasy such as elves, dwarves, monsters, and such. Just a dark world that is as beautiful simply because of its ugliness.

Second game is where it began to find itself, imo. Not the best game, but I think it was an improvement none the less. Pretty epic story imo.

Witcher 3 was amazing. In hind sight, maybe not the epic circle jerk we all thought, but arguably one of the top 100 games of all time, I would say.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is this: while I won't criticize you for buying The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2, I have to ask...why did you not buy The Witcher 3?

@Sam3231 The whole franchise is something iv never been able to get into at all, it´s just to boring

But i know people seem to love that game for some reason, wish i could see why but then again personally iv never been into the whole D&D timeperiod or storysetting.

Thanks for your responses, I think I will try and finish the first one for the sake of the story.

I only played TW3 and couldn't get into it. It felt like it should play like Bloodborne but instead it is floaty then you have the openworld which, while beautiful felt empty to me just like all other open world game I played

@Sam3231: I bet TW1 will grow on you if you give it more than a few hours. But if it doesn't, you might want to read up on the back-story and lore and then try TW3. Because it's by far the stand-out title, even if some aspects become less deep.

As noted above, I wouldn't play it without reading up on the earlier plot points and such, otherwise I fear you might view the characters as "random medieval strumpet #2" and "some king who seems to be a jerk but I don't care" - I feel like the significance of the personalities and politics grows out of the earlier two games

@xantufrog: Yeah I played it some more and I like the story so far... The combat though, is just utter ass no other way to put it.

@mrbojangles25: I didn't buy Witcher 3 because I purchased both of these in a Steam sale March of 2015. It wasn't out yet, I kind of just put off playing them because I was addicted to Dota 2 at the time.

@Sam3231: it's a pretty weird system. They moved completely away from it in 2+3. 3's combat is very similar in mechanical structure to 2, but it's all much more refined and works better.

I didn't play the first and I couldn't really get into TW2, but I love TW3.

Disliked the second game, got no enjoyment from it.

Third game was still not for me, but unlike TWII view it as a well made game (overall) that was simply not my taste.

Haven't played the original. But if it plays like the sequel? Count me out!

@Sam3231: Having played all three now. The first Witcher is all over the place. Sadly it was still in it's early stages of figuring out what it wanted to be as an RPG. There is some good story telling later in the game that ties into the sequel. Combat is fairly repetitive and the quests lack substance. Really it would be best if you just start with Witcher 2 and go from there.

It's probably my favourite RPG series of all time (and that's a pretty big call for me).

I think The Witcher 1 is the best one in the series - mainly for the world (setting/themes/music/design) and its fantastic story. Then again, The Witcher 3 is also a masterpiece, and my favourite game of the past 5 years, so...they're all good.

I don't know what I'd recommend nowadays, since I've been all-in since before the first game came out. TW1 is dated, but worth it for the story/characters. TW3 is a great entry point if you find the first pne boring though.

The first game is really not very good. The story is pretty good all told, but they really figured it out after that. As a series, it's one if the best. But you could just read cliff notes or something for the first one.

I cant offer any input on 1, haven't gotten to it yet. But the 2nd one is pretty good. And 3 is one of my favorite games ever.

I'd also highly recommend the books

I enjoyed all 3 games. I thought the first game had great combat - and the story was very well fleshed out as well.

The second game was so great I beat it twice on both paths. As for the combat is definitely different from the Witcher 1 - a lot more rolling, parrying and positioning. I won't say its better than the W1 - just different - but still very well done.

As for the Witcher 3 it has great gameplay - but it takes forever to beat. The world is so stupidly big that I decided to take a break from it after hitting level 21 or so. I plan to get back to it at some point.

As for the story most of the choices you make in the Witcher 1 and 2 hardly have an impact in their subsequent games (with a few exceptions) - which was somewhat disappointing to me - but not a huge deal. The plot points on the other hand are highly significant and carry over into each subsequent game.

To get the most out of this series I recommend playing all 3 games. They are all highly enjoyable and very well crafted rpgs.

For me, they emphasize elements that I don't care about: voice-acting, detailed scenery that you don't interact with, set-pieces that are somewhat forced etc. Also, the dialog is horribly anachronistic, and the fighting system isn't very sophisticated.

But, people like great graphics and violence, so if you're one of them, you'll enjoy it.

Never played the first, but really love the second one, and the third, of course.

The second game has great opening chapters, and if you choose to side with humans, you get to this brill log fort where you have some really awesome side quests in the outlying areas.

Sadly, if you choose to side with elves, you get to this silly dwarf city where the missions are just plain dull. So, avoid the elves...

End part of Witcher 2 was really weak. Gave me the impression they just rushed the ending, it was that bad.

I never play the first witcher 2 its great game and the witcher 3 its fantastic experience

TBH the combat isnt great but the game is pretty engaging.

@CTR360: i agree with you. I think this game is osom