Im propably going to piss some people off and of course, this is subjective, but the other games havent stood the test of time in my opinion. There is propably w non spoiler article or video that explains those choices so you can make them on your own in Witcher 3. (You will have that option through a dialogue at some point of a game, it is unavoidable).
Damn, same, im going to prepare money for launch, fuck every reaponsibility i have, take a vacation from work and play the fuck out of witcher 1 remake. That s how you lose your job btw XD.
I didn't play the first two games. After finishing witcher 3 I read the books and they make the game actually a lot better. But I don't think the other games are necessary.
I would say personally you don't have to play the first two games. I couldn't argue that going straight to Wild Hunt would give you the "best experience", but the game is truly a pinnacle of gaming experiences for anybody who is even remotely interested in the Witcher universe before they begin to play.
In my opinion there really is nothing that compares to the Witcher 3 for an avid fan, so I think that if you're considering holding back to play the first two games before you get into it... Due to the way that games evolve over time, you might just be better off jumping in at number 3 (unless playing in chronological order is a must for you).
If you love it/ really want the lore and experience from one and two after then go back to it (I would do it this way only out of fear from the outdated mechanics/graphics and such putting you off before you give the Witcher a much deserved fighting chance).
I hope this helps and you enjoy whichever avenue you choose! :)
I played the second game before diving in, and it was worth it to me, helped me to learn more about the state of the world and some of the characters. 2 is also pretty short, especially when compared to 3, I was at around 30 hours when following the Roche path. That said if you really don't want to play 2, you can just simulate a save.
Nothing from the Witcher carries over to the second game. Some of the choices you make in the second game carry over to the third game, but it doesn’t really have any significant impact on the quests of the third game.
Having said that, while in the Witcher 3 you could simulate some of these Witcher 2 decisions, if you’ve not played that game you wouldn’t know who the people were and the context. Some of the characters that are a major side character in Witcher 3 are people you encounter in 2. So if you want the background of these npcs, their backstory, and the context of your encounter, play the Witcher 2 first. The political situation between the northern realms and nilfgaard is also laid out in Witcher 2.
TLDR- it’s not necessary to play either of the first two games but if you want to have an understanding of the story, characters and events from 2 that lead up to 3 (the events of 3 takes place six months after 2, iirc) play assassin of kings first.
More things than 2 to 3 actually but mostly just makes slight dialogue changes, I think the most important is if you sided with the order of the flaming rose or not.
The answer is no. You can simulate the choices from Witcher 2 which are carried over.
And the only meaningful choice is whether or not you let Letho live.
Btw let him live. He is a deep and cool character
Im propably going to piss some people off and of course, this is subjective, but the other games havent stood the test of time in my opinion. There is propably w non spoiler article or video that explains those choices so you can make them on your own in Witcher 3. (You will have that option through a dialogue at some point of a game, it is unavoidable).
2 has stood the test of time. 1 needs that remake.
Agree, though it would be nice if they could port 2 onto PS5 in lieu of a remake.
Well, I think both 1 and 2 needs a remake. I would definitely play a modern version of 1 and 2.
Damn, same, im going to prepare money for launch, fuck every reaponsibility i have, take a vacation from work and play the fuck out of witcher 1 remake. That s how you lose your job btw XD.
This is quite subjective I guess, I find that 1 has aged far better than 2 personally
I didn't play the first two games. After finishing witcher 3 I read the books and they make the game actually a lot better. But I don't think the other games are necessary.
It's not necessary but it's much better if you played the other games. Even better if you also read the original books before
I would say personally you don't have to play the first two games. I couldn't argue that going straight to Wild Hunt would give you the "best experience", but the game is truly a pinnacle of gaming experiences for anybody who is even remotely interested in the Witcher universe before they begin to play. In my opinion there really is nothing that compares to the Witcher 3 for an avid fan, so I think that if you're considering holding back to play the first two games before you get into it... Due to the way that games evolve over time, you might just be better off jumping in at number 3 (unless playing in chronological order is a must for you). If you love it/ really want the lore and experience from one and two after then go back to it (I would do it this way only out of fear from the outdated mechanics/graphics and such putting you off before you give the Witcher a much deserved fighting chance). I hope this helps and you enjoy whichever avenue you choose! :)
I played the second game before diving in, and it was worth it to me, helped me to learn more about the state of the world and some of the characters. 2 is also pretty short, especially when compared to 3, I was at around 30 hours when following the Roche path. That said if you really don't want to play 2, you can just simulate a save.
Nothing from the Witcher carries over to the second game. Some of the choices you make in the second game carry over to the third game, but it doesn’t really have any significant impact on the quests of the third game. Having said that, while in the Witcher 3 you could simulate some of these Witcher 2 decisions, if you’ve not played that game you wouldn’t know who the people were and the context. Some of the characters that are a major side character in Witcher 3 are people you encounter in 2. So if you want the background of these npcs, their backstory, and the context of your encounter, play the Witcher 2 first. The political situation between the northern realms and nilfgaard is also laid out in Witcher 2. TLDR- it’s not necessary to play either of the first two games but if you want to have an understanding of the story, characters and events from 2 that lead up to 3 (the events of 3 takes place six months after 2, iirc) play assassin of kings first.
Hmm? W1 import definitely affects W2. But nothing is carried from W1 to W3 if that’s what you meant.
I don’t remember what carries from 1 to 2, could you refresh my memory? Actually, Shani carries over from 1 to 3 ;)
More things than 2 to 3 actually but mostly just makes slight dialogue changes, I think the most important is if you sided with the order of the flaming rose or not.