Which Witcher to start Witching?

I have both Witcher 1 and 2, because they were like a dollar on GOG at various points in the last few years, and I figured they should be in the collection, although I've never got around to playing either of them. Now, I'm finally finding time to get back into some gaming, and I'm itching for a fantasy style RPG that's not Skyrim. I also finally have my PC in more than capable gaming condition, so I can play them modern games. So, obviously, I'm looking at Witcher 3. Because it's impossible to have followed the gaming industry in the last couple years without hearing it being called one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) games ever made. So, do I need to play either or both of the old ones to really appreciate 3? Or should I just go ahead and jump in?

The first one might be a bit too harsh to play these days but should play the 2nd one that still holds up reasonably well, you can watch the story summarum from youtube for the first game

You can play 3 straight away but you won't understand some of the backstory and characters from the other titles.

All 3 games are awesome RPGs though, I would play through the whole series.

Start at 3, you'll be able to follow along after some time. It really is a big improvement over the 2nd.

I found that 3 improved in every way except story. The story for Witcher 2 is better. (3 is still a masterpiece of an RPG though)

Just watch a story recap of Witcher 1 & 2 and go play 3 straight away.

Skip them all and play a point and clicker adventure game instead.

The third one since that's the only one you really need to play. The Witcher games are visual and gameplay masterpieces but their plots are nonexistent. Which is why you can safely ignore the previous two and focus on the best technical experience of the third.

I didn't bother with 1 and 2 because they sucked but 3 I was like maybe the devs finally got enough money to make a game but nope luckily my rich friend bought me it so I was able to fiddle around with it to try to make it fun without the frustration of giving bad people my money but after a lot of trying there was no way to make it fun lol it's beyond easy and beyond boring

all three are great, but more story line threads carry over from 2 to 3, so you can start with 2, or just play 3 after the main intro you will given a chance to make the major decisions relating to witcher 2 in an intel debrief

actually yeah the only people into the witcher are people who enjoy stories, I'm an adult I don't care about stories therefore the witcher is boring to me because the game itself is boring

that literally should be how they market it, it's not a game at all it's an interactive story I would sue them for false advertisement if I had actually paid for it myself

That must be why The Witcher's target audience are adults then...

sadly there's a ton of adults who love stories I'm not denying that I'm hoping the government eventually manages to wipe them out of the gene pool so I can get some real games

I would still start with 1. People bitch and moan a lot about it. I think its still a pretty good game. By the third game you're seeing characters you have not seen in a long time. A lot of holy shit, I have not seen you in forever!! moments.

If you're unemployed and you really love RPG's you can start with 1. I played it for half an hour. 3, on the other hand, I've been playing for a long time. It's not a problem if you don't know what happened in the first 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EJLVCvvOmM <-- totally off topic

I haven't played any of them myself yet, clearly, as that is kind of the point of thread, but it's plainly obvious that you're exaggerating and trolling. Please go away and leave this discussion to people who actually have something relevant to say.

I loved all 3 games and would recommend them all. That being said, you could skip the first game and be relatively fine plot wise. I do think playing TW2 enhances enjoyment of the 3rd game by quite a bit. TW3 is phenomenal regardless, but knowing the characters and past experiences makes the game so much more enjoyable since you're already invested in the characters.

Anyway, thanks for the input, everyone else. I'll go ahead and start 2 while I keep an eye out for a good sale to pick up 3.

Actually i recommend starting with 1. Its a hidden gem of a game ( i liked it a bit more than 2 actually though 3 is the best one ). It might be a bit harsh nowdays but stick with it and you will start enjoying it . Even the combat mechanics ( that people bitch about ) once you level up enough and get better gear and get a feel of the combat is actually quite decent. The world size and locations feel and are a bit bigger and more intersting than 2 . Story wise i also liked it more than 2.

I think some of the mechanics were the best in the first one.

2. The Witcher 1 is a bad game, CDPR were still learning how to develop a proper game.

I get that a lot of people feel that way, but I enjoyed TW1 Enhanced a lot more than TW2. The combat in TW2 drove me nuts - he handles like a boat on land. It felt like it was designed for use with the 360 controller, to be frank. The world was also way too restricted and compartmentalized.

TW1 was ugly and had a WEIRD combat system, but it worked fine and the world felt grim AND cohesive. A better, if less accessible, RPG IMO.

well , I promose you if you get pass the begining in witcher 1 you will get hocked .

for me I enjoyed them all , I didnt have any problems playing the first one . I loved it .

Played 1 more than 10 times , also 2 more than 10 times .

sadly cause of not having the time for the third one i spent only 70 h ... but planning soon to make another journy in it .

Give the first one a shot. Play the enhanced edition. The controls are a little wonky but the lore, characters and story are still CDPR quality.

The first one doesn't hold up well. I went on YouTube and just watched the cutscenes. The second one is still good. If you play it you get a major choice. Where you choose to follow Iroveth or Roche. The Iroveth quest is actually more fun but TW3 acts like it barely happened so for backstory purposes id do the Roche path. TW3 is in my opinion one of the greatest games of all time. Play the main storyline and then both expansions. The expansions were both brilliant.

I understand you, but The Witcher 1 felt more like an experiment to me, i don't have a problem with a little bit of jank in a game, but The Witcher 1 is "Jankyness The Game", and i loathed the combat system in that game, not only the design, but it was very unresponsive too. I played TW2 with a controller, but i felt i could use the keyboard hotkeys for items and signs, but i can't say if the rest of the controls would be suited for a keyboard. Also, the story in TW2 is on a whole other level, one of the bests imo.

Well, i don't think any of the 2 are essential, but i'd say The Witcher 2 is worthy the time, unlike 1, for me at least, i'd change my experience with it for 35h of my life back.

I would start with 1. It's a good game I think.

The Witcher 1 is a niche game that isn't going to please everyone. I recommend everyone to at least try it.

Even with its flaws it's still one of my favorite games. Period.

I would start with the first, It is the most unique of them, it has a fairly slow start but get passed the first real "area" (the outskirts) and the game picks up pace in one of the better stories in the series.

The Combat might throw you off, as it is more rythm based then a button mashing experience, which is a hit or miss.

The story is great, and I find that TW3 has more overall callbacks to TW1 then TW2, not that you need to play either in order to follow the story, as the stories are self contained in each games, but they do give a lot of lore, and a lot of interactions with NPCs will likely make you react somewhat differently.

TW2, is more like TW2, just more unrefined, with a story that is frankly rather lackluster in comparison. And the impact of TW2 in TW3, is oddly limited, but then TW2s plot was more of a political nature, which might why I found it dry as dirt, and slow as hell. But most people really like it, so I would not pass on either to be honest, or at least give them both a 3 hour run each, before deciding to stick to them or abandon them.

yea this is a good approach imo, at least TRY Witcher 1, if you bounce off it hard, fair enough, but it might hook you and playing the first two games will add a lot of meaning and context to 3

I also felt it had a much more enjoyable story as well. TW2's story got bogged down in political jargon far too often. I loved both games about equally though.

@the_bi99man: Definitely not the first one- played 10 hours and it felt like a giant chore.

I cant stress this statement enough

If you are interested in the story, play all three. If not, just go ahead and play Witcher 3.

I'd say 3.

1 is old (but good) and 2 is boring.

Haven't played 3 myself, but it's probably the best one.

If you like big, convoluted story driven games with soooo much deep lore to sink yourself into... then go ahead and play Witcher. I would recommend reading the books over playing the 1 and 2, but 3 is such a top tier game : it can't be missed.

ANY OF THEM! Haha but seriously they're all great!

1 used to be nice entry to the franchise. Can't say that now.

I'm playing 2 nowadays, and there are some design choices I don't agree with (invisible walls, etc.), but it's still good. I'm playing with a mod that replaces roll with pirouette (this was part of Full Combat Rebalance 2.0, but I didn't want that mod in its entirety, so i just got a mod that just does the pirouette), because it's lore-correct.

3 has some stuff that carries over from 2, but really, 1 and 2 are overlong narrative setup for why the world has gone to shit in 3. And while there are quite a few references to 1 and especially 2 in 3, most of the big references and plot points that originate outside of 3 are from the novels. One can make an argument that reading The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny is a lot more crucial than play 1 and 2 before 3.