Support NeoGAF

[killatopak]

I'm wondering about this as well.

I am on the cusp of starting a playthrough and just at the very start the game throws a very hard choice.

Witcher 2 simulation or not?

 

[Head of Vengarl]

No, but I recommend reading the books.

 

[conman]

Not at all. IMO the first two are not very good games set in a very cool world.

I played an hour or so of The Witcher 1. Got bored and frustrated by the mechanics. I played the whole thing of The Witcher 2, but felt like it was a mediocre knock-off of Mass Effect (in terms of game design) set in a rich, awesome world. I wanted a better game.

The Witcher 3 stands miles above its predecessors both in design and in storytelling. No need to bother with the prior games. Each is more like an "episode," with only some very minor overlap that the writers catch you up on anyway.

 

[KeyBladerXIII]

Not really, you might miss out on the relationship between Geralt and some characters like Roche, but that's all.

I'd say reading the books would make you understand some aspects of the game better, like Ciri and her story which picks up right after the books, but it's not critical to do so. Some book characters also show up for the first time in the game, so it's a cool bonus to see then after reading about them.

 

[Aceshighhhh]

Witcher 1 is GOAT so I'd say yes

 

[ChoklitCow]

I actually just finished a 100hr run of Witcher 3 and it's expansions last night after never playing more than 5hrs of Witcher 2 and the opening of Witcher 3. Had to test out the legs of my 1080ti. Could never get passed the combat of Witcher 3, but finally pushed through the opening and adored the game as it becomes amazing.

Absolutely loved the experience without knowledge of the other games. Just pulled up wiki's when needed. Makes me want to read the books. Great story.

What I wasn't expecting was that the DLCs we're in my opinion better than the standard game..

 

[Vistrix]

I got sick of playing Witcher 1 and it actually put me off the series. The combat was laughable and just not enjoyable.

I know 2 and 3 has better combat but I feel I need to complete the story of 1 first...

 

[rgoulart]

I tried but could not get into 1 and 2. But I enjoyed the hell out of 3.

Honestly, I wouldn't bother to play 1 and 2 if I were you.

 

[HellforLeather]

No. I never played any of the previous games and loved Witcher 3. It does ask you to retroactively make decisions from the previous games but I never felt that it messed up my story line throughout my playthrough.

 

[Grinchy]

Avoid the first one. Die-hard fans will tell you it's good, but just keep in mind that they're die-hard fans for a reason.

 

[xBladeM6x]

If you're dead set against not playing 1 & 2, just do what I did. Look up 5-10 minute story recaps on Youtube for both games, and then start 3.

 

[malboroking]

I never played The Witcher 1 or 2, but I absolutely loved 3. There are some things that will be kind of weird, characters that have a familiarity with each other and plot events from the previous games are alluded to, but nothing important. You can definitely start with 3.

 

[borges]

Not at all. My first Witcher was 3, and now im playing 2 thanks to glorious Xbox BC.

 

[Artdayne]

Avoid the first one. Die-hard fans will tell you it's good, but just keep in mind that they're die-hard fans for a reason.

Not necessarily.

 

[Intru]

Not required at all.

Witcher 1 is actually a direct sequel to the novel series, and you didn't need to read those either to enjoy the first game.

I enjoyed Witcher 1, but I really dislike how the second game plays so I never got far in it. I felt fine going into Witcher 3 and loved it.

 

[Van Bur3n]

It's not necessary but you should as it enhances the experience all the more to recognize the familiar faces and references. Also because they're simply good games.

You should also take a gander at the books. At the very least the short stories. Really adds another layer of backstory to the characters.

 

[nacimento]

You can on principle, but it would be a waste to miss a great RPG (Witcher 1) and one of the best RPGs there are (Witcher 2).

 

[His Majesty]

Avoid the first one. Die-hard fans will tell you it's good, but just keep in mind that they're die-hard fans for a reason.

lol

The Witcher 1 was received very well by press and public alike and still holds up today.

 

[Yukstin]

I didn't play 1 but I did spend a lot of time with 2 playing both paths of the story line.

I think it definitely helped me connect with the characters when they return in 3.

 

[bananafactory]

No. I know I missed a lot of references but I only played 3 and never once felt lost or overwhelmed. The game does an excellent job telling it's story without having to rely on external material (cough FFXV) or knowledge of past iterations.

It's one of my top games of this generation and one of the best stories I've ever played

 

[thelatestmodel]

No. I have no intention of ever playing them, and I still loved 3.

 

[IrishNinja]

i bailed on 1 after too many fetch quests and swamp

2 i have on 360, is that a good port? should i bother with it before 3?

 

[w0s]

No. There is definitely reoccurring characters but it isn't totally necessary to fall in love with witcher 3.

 

[funkystudent]

Unless you know the books even playing Witcher 1 feels like jumping into a sequel to something.


3 is fine as a stand alone thing. Of course parts might fly over your head but I think a few youtube videos would help.

 

[Tohsaka]

Nope. I tried playing the second one a couple times but couldn't get into it, so I just skipped to 3 and liked it a lot.

 

[spacedublin]

No, i first played the witcher 3 and i don't own 1 or 2 and i've never played them, I bought the dlc about a year after i played through the game for the first time. My second full play through with the dlc was even better than the first.

There are some recurring characters, you can tell just by playing, but you don't need to know two games worth of backstory to understand what's happening.

 

[dlauv]

I didn't play 1 to enjoy 2, but I think playing 2 helped me enjoy 3 more.

So, probably not, but it would also maybe help you enjoy it more.

 

[SteveO1683]

Never played the first, attempted the second on 360 but never clicked with me. Loving the third so far.

 

[Budi]

Avoid the first one. Die-hard fans will tell you it's good, but just keep in mind that they're die-hard fans for a reason.

 

[LegitMcfalls]

There is a few call backs to the previous witcher games in 3 but there is alot more call backs and easter eggs from the books. Im currently on my second play through and reading the last wish and ive come across a few things early on that i would have never picked up on if i had never read the last wish.
There is enough story and rich characters that just playing the witcher 3 you wont miss out on.

 

[poodaddy]

No but you should. They're absolutely incredible games with tons of quality content and replayability.

 

[HeelPower]

Witcher 2 is absolutely incredible. I have no idea why you'd skip that.

Witcher 1 is great on all fronts ,but the combat system is wack.Just play it on easy.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

Not at all. TW3 is one of my favourite games ever and I never played the first two.

 

[pretty done]

Nope. Skipped 1 and played an hour of 2 but enjoyed 3 just fine.

 

[Mediking]

Nope. Never played Witcher 1 or Witcher 2 yet Witcher 3 was new-comer friendly enough for me to love that game dearly. It's awesome!!!

 

[Piggus]

Never played the first games, but played W2. You'll gain a better appreciation for the characters if you at least play W2.

 

[Morgan Blackhand]

They are all great games and you should play them.

 

[Mathieran]

I didn't but I had read some of the books. That helped me get into the world. Definitely read The Last Wish
And Sword of Destiny. They're a collection of short stories and they would get you into the world very well and introduce most of the characters.

 

[Yam's]

If you generally care about lore, story and characters, then playing 1 and 2 will enhance your experience in 3.

You can use a cheat editor for 1 cause the battles aged really poorly. This way you can enjoy the story at your own rythme, though some quests are quite badly designed (lot of running around).

2 is a lot easier to play with its battle system. It's quite short too and you'll be glad you've played it with all the following going on in 3.

 

[Xliskin]

If you generally care about lore, story and characters, then playing 1 and 2 will enhance your experience in 3.

You can use a cheat editor for 1 cause the battles aged really poorly. This way you can enjoy the story at your own rythme, though some quests are quite badly designed (lot of running around).

2 is a lot easier to play with its battle system. It's quite short too and you'll be glad you've played it with all the following going on in 3.

.