As someone who only played 3 should I play the other Witcher games?

>>379287730
If you enjoy the world, lore, and characters, yes.

>>379287730
>playing trilogies out of order
I don't understand why people do this nowadays.

But yes, you should play ESPECIALLY the TW1:EE, even more so if you've not read the Novels.

TW1 > 3 > > > 2

>>379287730
If you enjoy the world, lore, and characters, no, just read the books.

YouTube W1 cutscenes. You'll honestly get more enjoyment out of it and bypass the godawful combat.

You could, but it really depends on your tolerance for jank and bullshit. Each game has it's own unique qualities and strong points, but each has it's own major flaws. This probably applies to TW1 and 2 more than the 3, which was generally most "ballanced" quality-wise.

TW1 has amazing atmosphere (best of the series), great environment, good scope that was neither too limited nor too wide, by far the best quest design of all the games, and pretty decent story. Also alchemy was cool.
But it was clunky as shit, just as shallow as every other TW game (anyone who claims that TW1 was more of a "real RPG" is deluded or flat out lying), the combat was just a complete ass, and the pacing was horrible.

TW2 has the best main story and best characters of all the three games. I'd also argue that on a minute-to-minute basis it actually looks the best. The story was most branched. It was however very claustrophobic, rather short, and the controls and U.I. were an ABSOLUTE clusterfuck. The combat was... it did five steps in the right direction and four steps sideway and into a pit of used needless. There were moments where I really enjoyed it, but there were also moments where it frustrated me to no end. In comparison, the combat in TW1 is just braindead, and the combat in TW3 is really by the numbers: TW2 is... frustrating mess of good ideas and poor implementation.
Also, TW2 had the weakest soundtrack and generally, it felt like it kinda lacks atmosphere compared to the other games. It had several really "epic" setpieces but the stuff in between was... kinda lifeless.
But again: the main story and characters were absolutely amazing, best the series has seen.

So yeah. I'd argue both are well worth playing if you like the TW atmosphere, writing, lore and shit.

None of them is worth playing if you actually expect balanced, complex or inovative gameplay.

>>379288492
>But it was clunky as shit, just as shallow as every other TW game (anyone who claims that TW1 was more of a "real RPG" is deluded or flat out lying), the combat was just a complete ass, and the pacing was horrible.
just kys. TW1's gameplay, including combat, is not only more enjoyable, but also has notably more depth than ANY of its sequels. And yes, it's notably more of a ROLE playing game than its "We want DaS audience!" -sequels.

TW2 has absolutely awful controls and UI, and it just butchers the plot and characters as well. Tinyass linear maps with mysterious loadingtime doors, everywhere. It's clear that they wanted to make a ""cinematic"" game for console audiences, instead of atmospheric adventure game the original was.

>>379288857
>TW1's gameplay, including combat, is not only more enjoyable, but also has notably more depth than ANY of its sequels.
That is a hilarious delusion and flat out lie. And if you believe this: there is something objectively wrong with you. There was no more depth to TW1, no more roleplaying than there was to any of the sequels. I like TW1, I really do. But I'm not delusional, not driven by insane fucking insecurity and weird obsessive sentiments. If you actually weren't mentally unstable, and were able to read further into the post, you'd find that I acknowledge the issue with TW2 (at least the objectively true ones, namely the U.I. and controls as well as the scope. The plot and characters were actually best of the series and again, this is not something even disputable).

You are not even remotely close to being objective. In fact you are completely and utterly blind and completely and utterly dishonest about what the games are like, because you draw some kind of boner or sense of superiority from the pathetic, immature "look at me, old things were always better" dance. Nothing that you say matters, really.

>>379287806
So the gameplay isnt outdated?

>>379289256

It is. W2 is particularly painful.

IMO only go for it if you're a Trisscuck

>>379288458
Thought I would watch 1's cutscenes first then play 2 enhanced edition or whatever

>>379288492
Yeah honestly the Gwent game mad eme interested in the characters in 2

>>379289256
>So the gameplay isnt outdated?
It's not so much outdated as it never was very well designed (in case of TW1) or implemented (in case of TW2) to begin with.

>>379289246
>That is a hilarious delusion and flat out lie.
How is it a delusion if I played the original game 4 times in a row within the first couple months, yet seriously had to push myself to finish TW2 even once?

And how is it a "lie"? You're telling me TW2 has the sword stances and stuff nowadays? You can finally do something else than just roll and play with bombs / signs when your HP is regenrating? Finally able to drink potions when enemies are nearby once again? Yeah, didn't think so.

But then again, you're the kind of Xbox kid who has now learned the pathetic trick of "repeat it until it becomes a fact", that seems to work on teenagers nowadays. You run out of arguments, so you succumb to utilizing a barrage of Ad Hominem assaults instead.

Let me make this absolutely clear:
I honestly, unironically, love The Witcher 1: Enhanced Edition.
I hated The Witcher 2 with passion, and completely lost all faith in gaming press and random peoples' opinions. It's the literal black sheep of the series, with god-awful gameplay, zero replay value (inb4 "m-muh episode 2!!"), and butchered writing + cast.

Finally, it's not my fault that many older games seem to indeed do so many things WAY better than modern trash aimed at Xbox audiences.

>>379289513
>Yeah honestly the Gwent game mad eme interested in the characters in 2
Most of the characters in TW2 makes a return in TW3, but sadly: they were far more interesting in the second game. While TW3 introduced some interesting new folks, they did not do a great job working with the established secondary cast. TW2 is really damn good when it comes to this. And the whole story is almost entirely character driven - no prophecies and no world-ending magical mcguffins - though it will be extremely difficult to wrap your head around it and understand much of it and the full depth of the political and personal intrigue if you aren't very familiar with the books.

It also has what I would argue one of the best if not the best moral choices not only in the series, but in the bloody medium all together. So that is cool.

But the rest of the game is... well it's painfully clear that CDPR were experimenting and just lacked experience, and also that the game was caught in some major budget restraints.

File: inventory comparison TW1 vs 2 tiny.jpg (501KB, 1814x823px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1814x823px

>>379289256
>So the gameplay isnt outdated?
If you have ever held a mouse, you can play The Witcher. It's literally like those older 90s and early 00s PC WRPGs like Diablo and NWN, where you simply assign commands with mouse clicks, and watch your character do his things. You can even set the camera to top-down view, which seems to help some people figure out the gameplay a bit better. Timing and placement do play a major role in the combat though, even if you can for the most part just keep clicking on foes.

TW2 is a weird, clunky mixture of realtime and what I described above. It was, no joke , inspired by Demon's Souls AND Assassin's Creed, and aimed for gamepad users. I honestly don't like this weird hybrid system at all, even less so since the PC version practically ignores the existence of the mouse.

For the comparison, TW3 is like a middle-ground between 1 and 2, with style closer to original game, but combat gameplay leaning a bit more towards 3

>>379289513
>Thought I would watch 1's cutscenes first then play 2 enhanced edition or whatever
Don't.
Do it the other way around. For starters, TW1 is all about the EXPERIENCE, and situations and scenes can vastly differ depending on what you do, how you do, and when. There is a plot and golden line in general there somewhere, but quite a bit like in STALKER, it's your personal adventure which you build yourself that you will most likely remember afterwards. And at that, it excels extremely well, way better than its more "cinematic" sequels.

TW2 is just shit, and has practically nothing to do with the Wild Hunt.

read the first two books

My friend told me the Witcher series is amazing and I would like to play 3 to understand what the deal is but my autism won't let me skip games and said friend says Witcher 1 is super amazing but only after chapter 5. I can't really get into it though, should I just play on easy and eschew any exploration?

>>379290127
>How is it a delusion if I played the original game 4 times in a row within the first couple months, yet seriously had to push myself to finish TW2 even once?
Are you seriously asking me this? "How am I deluded when: Here is a list of my actions based on my delusion!"
Dude. I don't give two flying fucks how many times you played which game. That is irrelevant. Your personal, subjective sentiments are irrelevant. I played fucking Shogo: MAD twenty times and never fucking finished Doom. Does that mean that Doom is a shit game Shogo MAD is a great fucking shooter?
No. You are deluded into thinking that this is objective, and that your subjective, bizarre and insecurity driven bullshit is actually worth anything.

>And how is it a "lie"?
Because TW1 flat out, objectively, does not have any more complexity, depth or more space for actual roleplaying. There are no extra character build options. The combat requires both less strategy AND less skill to pull through. It's more shallow: plain and simple. The two stances did not add more gameplay options you fucking retard. It's not depth. It's busy work. Every situation has PRECISELY ONE proper stance. There is no option, you don't chose between them, there are no benefits and disadvantages to which one will you use, or which one will you put your skill-points in. Actually when it comes to combat options, TW2 actually has different strikes that can be used in different moments of the combat against the same enemy each having advantages and disadvantages: and an actual dodge option, and throwables, and traps. Significantly more options and more depth. I mean sure: it's clunky and the controls are shit which kinda takes that advantage away, but it has more depth, even if it it's not well implemented.

>But then again, you're the kind of Xbox kid
Born in 1988, never owned a console in my life, grew up with Dungeon Master, Fallout, and Panzer General. But sure, keep on to your deluded assumptions.

File: 1349713286787.jpg (440KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 2048x1152px

>>379289513
>Thought I would watch 1's cutscenes
So you'd rather watch a series of still painting with Geralt commenting on something that just had happened, in one of the many possible ways depending on your actions, than actually PLAY and see what happened and how it all ended up like that?

Just what??

>>379290902
>said friend says Witcher 1 is super amazing but only after chapter 5.
Your "friend" is bullshitting you, as the game only has 5 chapters.

Most people seem to agree that the game picks the hell up after the first 2 chapters, with #4 being the most amazing, leading to the great finale of the game. I personally enjoyed it from the very beginning, but I'm more of an explored / adventurer kind of player anyway, and I still remember how games would be assumed to improve towards the end.

>>379287730
Yes.
Just power through Vizima outskirts in the first one.

>>379290127
>I honestly, unironically, love The Witcher 1: Enhanced Edition.
>I hated The Witcher 2 with passion, and completely lost all faith in gaming press and random peoples' opinions.
I don't give a fuck. What in the GODS NAME makes you think anyone does? Your fucking feelings are not based on any fucking rationality. If you can't get past your fucking irrational emotions, fuck off. You are useless and unable of basic fucking conversation.

>>379290981
>lemme spam words "objectively" and "delusions" just to make my statement sound more clever and though out.
tl;dr.
Nice try.

You are, however, objectively delusional and plain out lying on the internet about The Witcher 1.

>>379287730
yes.

TW1 is better than TW2. It doesn't rush you along and the environments and atmosphere was just much better. You want to explore every thing. In TW2, it seems like CDPR tried to make it a cinematic experience, the gameplay wasn't as smooth. I don't know about anyone else but I also preferred the combat in TW1 more. It felt very fluid and the different stances were nice to use.

>>379291223
Well, I think that is as far as this conversation goes. Literal "NO U" and "I CAN'T READ!"

thank you for proving me right on every single point, particularly the one about you not being even remotely capable of most basic human discussion you pile shit.

>>379291073
Haven't played the first Witcher since it came out but aren't a tone of chapter 2-3 quests set in the swamp? That area is just complete shit and repetitive to fight a group of drowners after every ten steps you take.

>>379287901
It's not even like TW3 needs 1/2. It needs the books more than anything, which is ironic considering it's sold with that "newcomers welcome" mindset.

Then again, nobody seemed to complain that Geralt and Ciri's relationship was as nonexistent as Anakin and Obi-Wan's, so who cares I guess? Eat your schlock.

I also started with 3 and went back to play the first 2

they're terrible. don't waste your time

>>379291304
>It felt very fluid and the different stances were nice to use.
No, it did not feel fluid. Do you people even know what that word means. It's literally you standing nailed to the ground presssing a single button in rythm.

I actually do prefer TW1 to TW2 because in the end, the atmosphere made for a more memorable experience, and you are right about the fact that the poor combat and handling in TW2 made the combat often frustrating, while in TW1 it was just completely and utterly braindead, to a point where it just kinda lulled player into a near trans of boredom and clicking away, which some might argue is less invasive than making you want to pull your nails out and throw the computer out of the windows.

But I'd definitely not say that it was better. Two different approaches, but both just equally as flawed.

Why does the Wild Hunt look completely different in the Witcher 1 compared to 3? Also why does he look completely different between the two games?

>>379291073
>Your "friend" is bullshitting you, as the game only has 5 chapters.

Well it's been 2 years, all I recall is that he claimed it picks up in a big way after a certain point, one that apparently I can not bring myself to reach because of the boring combat and uninteresting setting. Also, you didn't really answer my questions; do I really miss out on anything by playing on easy? I figure the less combat I have to deal with the better.

>>379291529
>Haven't played the first Witcher since it came out but aren't a tone of chapter 2-3 quests set in the swamp?
Second and third chapter will have you visiting the same swamp (the game is not set there, it's just one of the locations that the chapters share for sidequests and chapter 3 for a couple of main story ones too).
The last chapter features a DIFFERENT swamp, but thankfully that part of the game is really rushed so you don't have to spend that much time in there. Between this, Flotsome and Velen, CDPR really has a boner for swamps, don't they?

I've always been confused about what makes people love The Witcher 1 so much since from a gameplay perspective it's pretty god awful. I've seen people say it has more depth than TW2 and wondering what's so deep about bog standard fetch quests and spamming igni and group style.

While the story is decent and it's got some cool CnC, the animations, voice acting, and translation issues also kind of let it down. The camera angle they use during conversations inherently makes them awkward to look at.

>>379287730
kill yourself underage

>>379291136
Why you have to be so mad?
Sorry that you are not interested in hearing other people's opinions. Like it or not, games are very subjective experiences, some people dig certain types of experiences and play in vastly different ways than some others do.

That being said, it is also possible to misjudge a game by either: A) Approaching and playing the games "wrong", and B) Having been used to only certain types of games thanks to limited exposure to the overall genre / media, thus experiencing a form of cultureshock when a game X does not fit into the expected personal molds.

In these cases, people tend to turn to other fellow humans to inquire about their experiences, in order to mirror their actions and see if there is something they can do about it. Which is exactly what these anonymous image board threads are for.

>>379291365
If you actually are interested, I can type you a very detailed explanation why I enjoyed the original game yet hated the sequel.

>>379291529
I actually only played TW1 and up for the first time in 2013, and besides being allowed to roam around / run through the swamp, you don't need to exactly live there that much. And unlike so many memester, I personally quite enjoyed the swamps.

>inb4 Drowners
shows people don't know their alchemy.

>>379291660
>No, it did not feel fluid. Do you people even know what that word means.
Actions flowing smoothly, resulting the action I as the player wanted to perform. Impressive animation and great end-results help a lot too.
TW1's combat is simple, flashy, and comfy as fuck.

>>379291802
Different eras, engines, probably artists even. You gotta remember, that Witcher was originally a series of books, no pictures.

>>379291802
Because designs evolve over time?

>>379288492
3's soundtrack called back to 1's in style, whereas went in a crazy direction for better or for worse (electric guitar in combat music)
i liked 2's soundtrack, and there were some excellent pieces sorceresses and, dwarven stone upon stone, but you're right, it gets outshined by the other 2 games

File: 1451767353679.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>379291809
>one that apparently I can not bring myself to reach because of the boring combat and uninteresting setting.
Oh, so you just got shit taste and ADHD. A shame.

>do I really miss out on anything by playing on easy?
No. And like said many times, the combat is quite secondary element in the original Witcher. There is actually TONS of other stuff to do than just killing stuff. That exact "role playing" things that Anon above is trying to convince you to believe that it would not exist.

>>379288857

>is not only more enjoyable, but also has notably more depth than ANY of its sequels

only in the alchemy side of things, if you're woke to how OP igni is it's as shallow as TW2 if not more shallow because the melee fucking plays itself for you.

>>379291860
Mixture of the fantastic atmosphere and edgy, angsty contrarianism and hipsterism.

I understand why people like TW1. I love it myself. But when people start making claims like this >>379291931 mental patient, you can pretty easily tell: This has actually fuck all to do with the games. People who declare that the game has more depth, that it is more of a "classic RPG" are really just retroactively justifiying their emotional attachement to the first game. They aren't talking about the game and it's mechanics: they are making a justification for why their irrational love for one and usually equally irrational hatered for the other makes them superior to others, and how their emotions cannot be questioned and are always correct.

That is the sad, fucking reality of these discussions. It's people who instead of challenging their own sentiments, obsessively twist the reality to make it fit their sentiments.

TW1 is a beautiful game: yeah the production values are iffy but that shit did not stop me from loving Gothic and it's not going to stop me from loving TW1 either.

But my god, I fucking hate it when people go out of their way to twist reality just to fit it their fucking sentiment. It's actually a dangerously fucked up thing to do.

>>379288857
witcher 2 is the only game that doesn't butcher the plot and characters
witcher 1's connection to the books is shitty, and witcher 3 throws retcons all over the place, witcher 2 is the only one thats true to the books

>>379291802

Why does the passage of time occur? What makes someones face grow hair? How does muscle get big? These are the questions scientists have been seeking to answer, and it is our job to ask these questions.

>>379287730
They're pretty experimental. If you're the sort of man-child who can't get into anything if it isn't immediately accessible, then you shouldn't bother. But if you can get past some of the weird choices then you'll find that they're a lot more interesting than W3 which was basically just a bethesda RPG in a different setting.

>>379292114
>Oh, so you just got shit taste and ADHD. A shame.
Man why you gotta be like that? I'm just not a huge fan of medieval settings and the first two hours of the first game in the series haven't really convinced me otherwise. I'm really trying my hardest to meet the setting halfway but after a weak combat heavy prologue I just lose the will to play it for a while. Then by the time I come back to it I feel the need to restart to refresh what happened.
Save the insults for the skyrim fans.

File: eredin.png (2MB, 1009x1449px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1009x1449px

>>379291802
>>379291945
>>379292375
no, witcher 1 had the design wrong
he's supposed to look like an armored soldier, not a bone shaman
it was corrected in 2 and 3

>>379292114
>. There is actually TONS of other stuff to do than just killing stuff.
Yeah: talking to people. And those are good dialogues. And some of the quests are really well designed. Well: two of them, the murder mystery in the second chapter (except for the fact that you can entirely skip it by accident because the correct solution is revealed if you find the dead body during a regular kills the ghouls sidequest), and the fucking story of the Noonwright, which is generally awesome.

Except that is not roleplaying, because in reality: your character does not matter. It could have been a point and click adventure and it would work just as well. There is no depth. Good writing and good script, but no mechanical depth: in the end, it's "talk to someone, at absolute best buy a book". Which is also exactly what the following games do, albeit TW2 lacking in any equally as memorable script.

Foltest is best character so play 2

>>379291931
>Sorry that you are not interested in hearing other people's opinions.
But you are not presenting your opinion you piece of shit. You are presenting a judgement. You are not saying "I personally enjoyed TW1 because I'm that kind of person". You are saying "TW2 is consolised garbage and TW1 had more depth." See the difference?
The reality is that you are talking about yourself (which nobody gives a fuck), but you are DISGUISING as if you were talking about the games. While in reality: you actually actively lie about them when it fits your own personal feelings better.

And that is my problem.

You can misjudge a game when you have personal bias. Which you very clearly do.

>In these cases, people tend to turn to other fellow humans to inquire about their experiences,
In these cases, people also assume that those they ask are actual human beings. And actual human beings are capable of seeing past their personal biases and at least not LIE about games for no other reason than because it fits their insecurity.

First learn to fucking think like an actual human being and ONLY THEN you will be qualified to share your judgements and opinions with others. You failed to learn something most children are required to learn around the age of 14.

>I can type you a very detailed explanation why I enjoyed the original game yet hated the sequel.
PLEASE DON'T.

>Actions flowing smoothly, resulting the action I as the player wanted to perform.
Except for a rythm-based combat using animation that automatically resets if you miss the rythm fucking prompt!

That flows wonderfully, except the animation fucking jumps all over the fucking place. But sure. Being nailed to the ground with NO OPTIONS WHAT SO FUCKING EVER outside of chugging a potion and seeing your animations not connecting and resetting randomly at the end of streaks or when you miss the rythm: that is what you call a fluid combat? And you still don't see my issue?!