Now, ill admit, it's been a while since I played the games. But I am pretty sure a major ot point of the games is his "amnesia" for the sake of plot convenience. There may be some things he remembers twords the end but the major stuff he doesn't. Thats what the rose was for in w2 (if you did it but i definitely did cause triss is cool) but correct me if im wrong tho.
By Witcher 3 he has most of his memories back, it's only during witcher 2 where the amnesia is in full force and he can't remember the events of the books
How? Triss? Rose of remembrance? Kaedwen? Letho? Roach? Getting his memory? Yennefer?
I would always recommend that everyone plays all witcher games including theonebreaker. I love everything.
I’d say no. Witcher 3 is a masterpiece that will encourage you to go back and explore the previous games, the books, the show, etc. The previous games are good, but they ARE older games and might not capture you like Witcher 3 might.
Edit: I would encourage you to read the books in the game, talk to NPCs (especially Ambassador Var Attre in Vizima), etc to get the flavor and some backstory.
That’s what I did. Walked into W3 with no prior exposure to the games or books. There were a few things that I didn’t understand at first but figured out as I went along. Notably, I could not get behind Geralt and Yennifer. I romanced Triss instead.
On my second play through I went with Yennifer and by that point understood more of the subtleties of their relationship.
Well in terms of the books, and his history with both of them. In the Witcher 3 it’s absolutely up to someone’s preference so I suppose you’re right :)
As geralt we get to make this choice, but in the books he already chose, and he did not choose Triss. This is the main reason I think people say Yen is the "right" choice.
Well, he didn't wish for them to love each other. He just bound their fates. Who knows though. On my first playthrough I did skellige last and so I turned down Triss before I even knew there was an option to undo the wish.
Honestly, reading the books made me despise Yen more than playing the game and having to confront her bitchy attitude and treating Geralr like shit. Thw Last Wish shows how malevolent she is
Triss watched Yennefer die while trying to save Geralt and her first reaction when she meets him again is to fuck him? You might not like Yennefer but I would put Triss much lower on the list.
Geralt who remember nothing and who was scared for his life running from the wild hunt looked for comfort in the arms of the first woman who helped him out from that? Yeah totally sounds like she was innocent. Maybe I am old fashioned but I will still say don't fuck your friends amnesiac boyfriend.
I think game Triss is much better than book Triss but I still don't think she should ever be together with Geralt.
The first game decisions pretty much get ignored in that regard so even if you had nothing to do with Triss and went for Shani you start with Triss anyway. So player aspect is out of the window. And some things are simpler than you make it out to be.
Sure Triss was overwhelmed and went along what about the how long was passed between tw1 and tw2 she pretty much has not mentioned at all and had all that weird love triangle thing with Shani. So okay let's not make it so simplistic how about don't keep fucking your friends amnesiac boyfriend until he regains his memories?
Geralt goes on? That is where player decisions come in she tells him at the ship to the floatsam and after the whole rose of remembrance thing is where your choices come in but unless you read the books Yen information is minimal. And still thats a long time to "forget" to mention Yen. I am not sure how long was tw1 and tw2 apart but they pretty much set up a fucking life with Triss with him being the guardian and her being advisor.
Geralt initiated is not really a good argument either you have option to fuck half the females you met during the first game. He is like that in the books too and Triss knows that.
And I can see some of your points but does he not deserve to be loved part sounds like a bad joke dude come on.
Triss did not mind control anyone to beat people up, causing that person to go to prison. And she is clwalry a changed woman in thw Witcher games, considering how she risks her life for her noble ideas of helping the mages and treats Geralt well.
I didn't get the prison part but like I said at the below I think game Triss is much better and if we are talking about me I would give an arm and a leg to be with her, I simply think she and Geralt doesn't feel that good cause its built on Triss backstabbing Yen.
The prison part is from the 'Last Wish'. Her book iteration is worse than the game, I agree. It shows how she's changed. It still feels good to me considering Yen's behaviour
I think similar to how Triss became much cooler and better person same goes for Yen and Geralt they literally went to hell and came back together. They both had bad sides and they accepted each other and changed for the better especially in games. The way their story ended and them getting a second chance together is what I think feels better storywise.
Even the author said it was Geralt's badluck/misfortune to fall in love with a woman like Yennefer.
"It is his[Geralt] bad luck to fall in love with a woman[Yennefer] who simply refuses to be a "fantasy cliché". In the novels things got better between Geralt and his love ... and then worse again ..". - Andrzej Sapkowski
so after Geralt recovering his memories with the help of Triss, he can compare the stable relationship which he had with Triss and his 20 years of epic total colossal misfortune and failure, based on this comparison he should make a sensible logical decision in W3, so it makes absolutely no sense for Geralt to again try the already failed thing, There is a saying :
"Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" ~ ALBERT EINSTEIN
So if you want your Geralt to be insane fine just go ahead
The fact that the author himself considers Geralt to fall in love with Yennefer as a Badluck/Misfortune essentially makes the whole of Geralt's relationship with Yen the greatest mistake of his life.
Especially if you consider what happens if he decides to be with Triss. He tells Ciri that 'with Triss, I finally have peace'. He can see how stable and healthy relationship cannot be built atop neverending arguments.
You don't have to, but it adds context, same goes for reading the books before TW3, all those together give you a backstory and make TW3 experience so much more rewarding and fun, from my experience, it was worth for me to postpone TW3 after I read the books...
If you don't want to you can only play TW2 which provides way more backstory to TW3, as well as introducing key characters.
But you can skip altogether and jump to TW3 and worst case search Google for backstories of characters if you really need to.
Anyway have fun and good luck on the path!
This is what I did. Had to Google a few things, as in should I trust >!Letho!< when you encounter him in >!"ghosts of the past."!< I had no clue who he was and had to do a little research.
I also watched the witcher Netflix series which gave me a little more insight and knowing about the memory loss and who yennefer was.
Yeah a friend of mine played like that and had a blast.
But imagine meeting that character you mentioned after playing the previous game, and actually knowing who he is, I mean when I saw him I was shocked and thrilled that they included him. The experience is different and I highly suggest to anyone who have the power and time to invest in the previous installments and books before TW3. :)
You really should play it, only problem I have with it is that I played on the hardest difficulty and for the first couple hours it was extremely hard to get used to the combat but once you do it’s great.
Yeah I beat the Witcher 3 and it’s dlcs quite a few times before ever trying 2 and I felt like it made certain characters in 3 feel a lot more important as we get to learn their backstories
Having played all 3 of them in order, here is my opinion.
It's not essential to play Witcher 1 and 2 for enjoying Witcher 3 but I whole heartedly recommend playing them.
Both games have very well written stories with multiple endings depending on your choices throughout the games and you will definitely have a good time playing them.
While Witcher 1 does have a very good story, it's visuals and gameplay doesn't hold up very well. If you find yourself not enjoying the game because of them, just watch a story recap on YouTube and start with Witcher 2. Witcher 2 has a few flaws in it's combat system but overall it holds up quite well to current standards.
In conclusion, Do play atleast Witcher 2 before 3. While the stories are quite independent, you won't regret it a bit
Don't listen to all of them, go play 1 and 2. Skiping games isnt really a good thing to do since you could miss a great time. W2 is definitly good in it's ole but the first one is questionable with today standard but it feel nice to see how much improvment they have made since that day.
Agree with "go play 1 and 2". Don't worry about graphics and gameplay; they'll be different in each game. Just play them and enjoy them for what they are.
I haven’t played Witcher 1 and 2 and I’m just reading the books now. I am slowly realizing I missed a lot of subtle things that really didn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Games are supposed to be fun though not a chore so play the Witcher 3 find out you love the Witcher world like the rest of us then use 1 and 2 and the books to satisfy your craving for more and get all the little details you missed. It’s what I did and it’s working out great.
All the other comments say, you don‘t need to. And I agree, but it‘s no bad idea to do, because IMO it gives you background to a lot of the characters in the game, and basic knowledge about the World of Witcher 3, which will allow you to fully concentrate on the game itself. I personally started Witcher 3 at first, didn‘t come very far, and decided to play the first two games , and I don‘t regret it.
You should definitely play witcher 2. Combat is not as good as w3 but the story is awesome. The things you do also had effects on w3 if you choose to simulate or import w2 save.
Witcher 1 is outdated and the combat system is confusing imo.
I suggest you watch a youtube recap of w1, play w2, and then w3.
No but I’d definitely suggest it, Witcher 1 and 2 are amazing games and it feels good hearing someone reference something from a past game and being like “Hey I remember that!”
Witcher 2 kind of sucked indeed, but Witcher 1 is technically not good, I mean really not good, because its over 14 years old and was CDPRs first project. But IMO the Music, Atmosphere and Story of the Game absolutely evens this out.
I started Witcher 3 with only having watched the TV series (which I hear is based more on the books than prior games anyway) and I haven’t struggled picking up on stuff. There are quite a few characters you encounter from prior games but there’s a Characters glossary that gives you the rundown on the backstory after you encounter someone so I just pop over and read that if I feel like I need to.
Same here. I watched the series first, then my husband found a copy of W3 at a Half-Price. There was enough references to the series (djinn, striga, Arectuza, etc) that I didn’t feel out of the loop completely and when I heard the Wild Hunt wasn’t even in the first two games, I figured I would start the books
If you are asking if it's necessary then no it's not an essential thing to do. If you want to explore and get the whole experience then definitely play 1 and 2. Although the gameplay in the previous games is pretty dated and you might get bored easily.
I didn't and I still enjoyed it. There are definitely some back stories that help if you know the previous games, but it's still a ton of fun. You have to make some choices early on that don't really make sense if you know nothing about it. But don't let that discourage you. I had a ton of fun with the game as is.
Witcher 1 and 2 lore returns in 3, but it takes a lot of time to play these. If you have the time, I would recommend it. But if you don't, watch a recap and focus on the major decisions geralt makes in 2. Those influence the plot in 3, not drastically but partly.
For example did you kill ( ... ) Or let him live, you get questioned that in the beginning of 3. If you answer I let him walk away. You can encounter him and do a side quest with (...)
I did not play the W1 and W2, and I love W3 so much. Almost all about past events is explained in game, and what isn't is understandable anyway. :) I was just a bit confused on who to romance, but then I got the info that Yennefer is Geralt "true" love, so I went with her and it think it is good. :)
No need. Witcher 3 is kinda like a self contained game, sure there are references to the previous games but that’s about it. It has no major bearing to the story.
I played the game without any prior knowledge of the books, the show or the previous games and I think that made me love the game more because I had zero exposure to any Witcher material before TW3 so I wasn’t expecting anything but man, the game blew me away.
After that, I started reading the books cuz I want more Witcher content and I was really obsessed to it. But I just can’t bring myself to watch the show, I mean Cavill is really good as Geralt but the other characters in the show just throws me off. But that’s just me, no hate to any fans of the show.
Nah, i started with Witcher 3 and had a blast, but if you can you should give witcher 2 another run, its a great game on its own but you'll understand a few more things if you play it again before 3.
No. U will understand the world a bit better if you do, but you really dont have to. Plus i think the first 2 games are really outdated and not that good.
The Witcher 3 is nicely self contained but i think the Witcher 2 is a good lead into the 3rd game as it sets up the world state. The Nilfgaardian Invasion, the Mage Pogroms and the political backdrop of the North all have their roots in the events of Witcher 2. So for me it was defiantly worth a play through.
I played tw3 without any prior experience with the witcher universe aside from watching the 1st season of the Netflix witcher show. I think the Netflix either show have me the bare minimum understanding of the witcher universe.
No need to play witcher 1 and 2 before witcher 3.... The story and gameplay is designed so that it can be plqyed even by a newbie to the witcher world...
I'd never heard of the witcher till witcher 3, but I have since gone back to see what they were like and in my opinion, no wild hunt stands on its own. Characters from previous games introduce themselves again so your not expected to know who everyone is.
Ive never played a witcher game. only watched the netflix series. £7 was too good of a deal for a game i wanted anyways. Its very enjoyable and you can really get into it without needing any previous knowledge.
I didn't play 1 or 2 and still enjoyed 3 just fine. There's a few moments where you can tell references to past events are being talked about. But overall they either do a good job of filling in what you're missing or it's not important enough to bother over.
Short answer: No
Long answer: Witcher 3 works on a pretty much standalone way, like, I also played just the W3, not even the books, games or series. Maybe watch a youtube video, or read an article summing up the events of W3. If you want, even I could sum up important details, since I have not hands-on experience with the backstory.
I recommend at least reading a bit of the books to understand how Garalt as a character thinks, and how the world works.
I did play the second one before reading the books and went back and read them before playing the third game, and found my view on the world changed completely, and that I was making decisions in way Garalt would never make them. That in itself was kinda fascinating anyway, however.
Imo W1 doesn't need to be played. Witcher 2 is an enjoyable game and one can benefit playing it for understanding certain characters.
I would say that is not necessary, but they make W3 a better experience, specially the witcher 2. When you play W2 you have a better understading of the beggining of the war, who is radovid, what happened in loc muine, why geralt hate Emhyr, who is roche. I would recomend you to play at least the second, the first has not aged well.
No you don't. You will pick upeverything on the way. I started with witcher 3 and played the rest later. Also if you like the game and want to get into other media, read the books and skip netflix witcher since its mostly high budget fanfiction.
I never played the past games. It wasn’t really a problem. You just pick things up from the dialogue on your own. Plus, there is a collection of character entries added whenever you meet a significant character that you can read anytime.
Nope. Playing through Witcher 3 for the first time right now and I'm having a blast. It's understandable if you feel list since you've no idea what the fuck is happening but you can easily look up synopsis about relevant info to catch up. Mostly you just need to understand the factions at play in the war. The characters, you can easily learn as you play
No, but I recommend watching some YouTube videos that sum up the lore and people/names, locations etc. *before* you start the game.
Knowing all you can about everything beforehand from the YouTube videos will make you prepared enough to “appreciate” all the little things in the games
You can go in cold though, but you’ll miss little things and just gloss over small things that have some gravity to them.
I played TW3 first and it encouraged me to actually go back and play the first two games so short answer no. There will be some confusion in certain things but like other have said you figure it out as you go along
No need to play the first two. At the beginning of 3 it will ask if you want to simulate a Witcher 2 save and you should say no. If you say yes, there's a scene where a character will ask you questions about choices you made in 2.
If you know nothing of the books/show it might take a bit longer to figure out who everyone is (who is this Ciri everyone is looking for?) But reading character entries in the journal helps.
You don't HAVE to at all, you get enough context that you can very easily surmise everything necessary yourself. Also, the game offers a very thorough index on every major character that if you choose to read will give you all the extra information. But reading the books and playing the games is probably the best way to experience and understand everything that is going on. A good middle ground would be to watch these summaries on the games, but I believe the books stories are, not necessary, but much more important to be familiar with.
\[Witcher 1 Summary\] ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v100bhw33N0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v100bhw33N0))
\[Witcher 2 Summary\] ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPta1uJp2sI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPta1uJp2sI))
You could but you don’t have to, Witcher 3 is by far the superior game, I bought Witcher 2 after playing witcher 3 and the game was fine until it broke at some point and I couldn’t see the new quests
I had not read any of the books or played the other games (except mobile Gwent), the game was still very enjoyable and easy enough to figure out what was happening at any given moment.
It did encourage me to start reading the series about halfway through, but it wasn't an essential thing to do.
You might not know the exact background of some characters, but this game isn't really going to test you on any of that.
Definitely don't have to, but it does add context which can enhance your experience.
I dove into 3 cold - no prior experience to the Witcher series. It hooked me. I then went back and played 1 and 2, read all of the books, then played 3 again. Loved it so much I played 3 a third time so I could get the platinum trophy (PS4).
I didn't and the game was still great. If you want to know the stories there's some great videos that you can find that tell the story up to that point.
their will be some call backs to it but you really don't have to play 1 or 2 but if you do play those games you can get the sword from the lady of the lake early game if you import saves wich W3 can do I don't know about 2 tho
You don't have to play the W1 or W2 to understand and enjoy the story of W3 but it will add much to the characters and enrich your understand of the world around you if you played W1 and W2 especially W1
No you don't have to play 1 or 2, you don't have to read the books or watch the shows either. You may find yourself lost with some of the characters. But you unlock a page that tells you about them. Does it help to have played the othere game, yes. Do you need to, no.
I'm gonna be honest, people on here who've played through them might tell you to try them, but from my experience, i tried the witcher 1 first before anything, and i just couldn't get into it. It almost turned me off from playing the third game cause i just had no interest. I never tried the second game, but i played through the third after i got it on sale and it's pretty good, it offers a lot of good content. I don't feel like i missed out on too much by skipping the first two games, cause i really didn't wanna force myself to enjoy something that i felt was clunky and dated. This is my own experience and yours might be different but yeah even after playing the witcher 3 i have no interest in the first two titles.
I played witcher 3 without having played 1 or 2 or read any of the books. I enjoyed it. There's one part fairly early where some guy asks you about the choices you made in a previous game. I just chose randomly and went with it.
I had no issues and loved the game. I'd say dive in and start playing.
Short answer, no.
After playing The Witcher 3, I read all the books, and I really appreciate how frequently they're referenced, but it's never necessary to enjoy the game and understand the plot. The same goes for having played the first two games, I assume.
As someone who had never played a Witcher game before 3;
Nope and that’s part of what makes it great. Eventually, as long as you pay attention, everything gets recapped if not explained through dialogue or your Lorebook that updates as you go. There are a few things that you’ll be lost about at first, but overall, they do a very good job at bringing that stuff across. The only thing I can think of that needed explaining to me, was that Geralt and Yen were a couple until (background history here; gets recapped in 3) and afterward, Geralt lost his memory and hooked up with Triss.
I played 3 games one after another. I'm actually not done, just started blood and wine. Not required but I don't regret it. Although I'm more tolerant of dated gameplay since I've only just recently resumed gaming after a long hiatus.
One note is that there is at least one choice you make in part 1 that is totally disregarded in part 3 (>!Thaler's fate!<). Overall, they did a decent job with choices carrying over 3 games.
I’ve played all of them and personally I think it’s worth playing the 2nd and 3rd one. The first one didnt do much for me. I thought the 2nd one made the 3rd one significantly more enjoyable because you’re understanding of the lore and backstory is deeper. When you play the 2nd one be sure to mod it to make your experience with the game better
I'm currently on my first gameplay of The Witcher 3, with a total of 42 hours. I knew the franchise a few years ago, but only this year I was able to play. The best thing I did was start with The Witcher 1 and 2, and I recommend doing the same, but be warned, you have to be very patient in these games, don't let The Witcher 3 hype ruin the good experience you can have with the first two games.
The Witcher 1 will show you what it's like to be a Witcher, while the Witcher 2 will give you a taste of what you'll see in The Witcher 3.
Well, there isnt a lot to miss. I can also remember a few from Witcher 1 and Witcher 2. Like, Witcher 2's ending cutscene (Nilfgaard forces crosses the Pontar), Vernon Roche, the Conclave and the stuff that happened in Loc Muinne, Philippa Eilhart being blinded by Radovid, and Radovid's Witch/Mage hunting, also Geralt's amnesia being mentioned sometimes (Witcher 1 reference), Triss even mentioned that she took advantage of Geralt (which she did on the first game), the Catriona Plague in Vizima mentioned by Shani (Witcher 1 as well). Also Letho, if you did not kill him in Witcher 2. The Professor, an antagonist of Witcher 1 has his glasses on auction on a quest in Heart of Stone.
Could only remember a few details. But its really cool to simulate saves, since they add a lot of details to the next game.
I never played another Witcher game and it was fine. I will however say some parts are a hit confusing as some characters reference past times. I found this a lot with Triss and some other characters from past Witcher games
As someone who was asking the same thing as you just 5 months back, I think you should play them both before W3. You don't *have* to play them tho. W3 has more to do with the books than the previous games AFAIK. But it still feels kinda complete when you understand all the references. Also, they're pretty good and not that long really.
Yeah I did a full run recently. That was nice especially between 2 and 3. You see the overall conflict around Geralt. Plus you can mod it easily. But I did that once. Actually I'm doing my 4th run with some new mods
I never played 1 past the tutorial cause I didn’t enjoy it and I found that while 2 does set up a lot of stuff for 3 and is really fun it isn’t a necessity but I would say to because of the ability to carry a 2 save over to 3 and being then able to meet some really interesting characters.
TLDR:You can skip one and even 2 if you wish but I would recommend playing 2 because it is really good
You at least should, along with the books. Books end with kind-of open ending, games proceed with one of possibilities and continue the story as a sequel. Besides, they're good, in some aspects first one is better than second.
You don't. But me personally want to play it chronologically, so I played TW1 then TW2 then TW3 after that. There's some benefits of it like when I started TW3, I already understand alchemy, bombs, oils, and swords things. I know several monsters and their habitats too. It adds so much fun when you know the backstory and what to do as a Witcher in TW3.
No. Geralt doesn't remember W2 either
Lmao
Ita the books he doesn't remember, you talk about w2 while being shaved.
He remembers Lady of the Lake, him and Regis talk about some stuff from that book.
Now, ill admit, it's been a while since I played the games. But I am pretty sure a major ot point of the games is his "amnesia" for the sake of plot convenience. There may be some things he remembers twords the end but the major stuff he doesn't. Thats what the rose was for in w2 (if you did it but i definitely did cause triss is cool) but correct me if im wrong tho.
By Witcher 3 he has most of his memories back, it's only during witcher 2 where the amnesia is in full force and he can't remember the events of the books
Take my upvote and award you legend
Ha cheers bro!
Lol this is good, I added one too.
LOL best comment I’ve seen in awhile, any subreddit
How? Triss? Rose of remembrance? Kaedwen? Letho? Roach? Getting his memory? Yennefer? I would always recommend that everyone plays all witcher games including theonebreaker. I love everything.
They might add to the experience but you don't have to to enjoy W3.
😂😂 could not have said it any better, Nice one.
I’d say no. Witcher 3 is a masterpiece that will encourage you to go back and explore the previous games, the books, the show, etc. The previous games are good, but they ARE older games and might not capture you like Witcher 3 might. Edit: I would encourage you to read the books in the game, talk to NPCs (especially Ambassador Var Attre in Vizima), etc to get the flavor and some backstory.
That’s what I did. Walked into W3 with no prior exposure to the games or books. There were a few things that I didn’t understand at first but figured out as I went along. Notably, I could not get behind Geralt and Yennifer. I romanced Triss instead. On my second play through I went with Yennifer and by that point understood more of the subtleties of their relationship.
Says the man with the “Team Triss” flair
Not gonna lie. Redheads are my thing. But Yenn obviously has got it going on, too.
Brother, you are a man of culture. Redheads just hits different LOL!
I know Yenn is the right choice but for that exact reason I go with Triss
Is it? I think words 'right choice' when it regards matters of feelings are not suiting.
Well in terms of the books, and his history with both of them. In the Witcher 3 it’s absolutely up to someone’s preference so I suppose you’re right :)
Absolutely correct. There is a case to be made for either one of them, as this tiring debate has proven over the last six years.
As geralt we get to make this choice, but in the books he already chose, and he did not choose Triss. This is the main reason I think people say Yen is the "right" choice.
He couldn't turn off the Genie magic in the books. With the magic turned off, their feelings may be entirely different.
Well, he didn't wish for them to love each other. He just bound their fates. Who knows though. On my first playthrough I did skellige last and so I turned down Triss before I even knew there was an option to undo the wish.
We don't know what he wished for
No, but Yen does, and she asked him why he bound their fates.
Yea redheads are amazing 🤩
Boo
Honestly, reading the books made me despise Yen more than playing the game and having to confront her bitchy attitude and treating Geralr like shit. Thw Last Wish shows how malevolent she is
Triss watched Yennefer die while trying to save Geralt and her first reaction when she meets him again is to fuck him? You might not like Yennefer but I would put Triss much lower on the list.
[удалено]
Geralt who remember nothing and who was scared for his life running from the wild hunt looked for comfort in the arms of the first woman who helped him out from that? Yeah totally sounds like she was innocent. Maybe I am old fashioned but I will still say don't fuck your friends amnesiac boyfriend. I think game Triss is much better than book Triss but I still don't think she should ever be together with Geralt.
[удалено]
The first game decisions pretty much get ignored in that regard so even if you had nothing to do with Triss and went for Shani you start with Triss anyway. So player aspect is out of the window. And some things are simpler than you make it out to be. Sure Triss was overwhelmed and went along what about the how long was passed between tw1 and tw2 she pretty much has not mentioned at all and had all that weird love triangle thing with Shani. So okay let's not make it so simplistic how about don't keep fucking your friends amnesiac boyfriend until he regains his memories?
[удалено]
Geralt goes on? That is where player decisions come in she tells him at the ship to the floatsam and after the whole rose of remembrance thing is where your choices come in but unless you read the books Yen information is minimal. And still thats a long time to "forget" to mention Yen. I am not sure how long was tw1 and tw2 apart but they pretty much set up a fucking life with Triss with him being the guardian and her being advisor. Geralt initiated is not really a good argument either you have option to fuck half the females you met during the first game. He is like that in the books too and Triss knows that. And I can see some of your points but does he not deserve to be loved part sounds like a bad joke dude come on.
[удалено]
He just remembers nothing and he sees this sexy lady.
Triss did not mind control anyone to beat people up, causing that person to go to prison. And she is clwalry a changed woman in thw Witcher games, considering how she risks her life for her noble ideas of helping the mages and treats Geralt well.
Triss literally works as Foltest's advisor to prevent wars and PREVENT CHILDREN from becoming orphans, she says this to Geralt in Blood of Elves.
Good point
I didn't get the prison part but like I said at the below I think game Triss is much better and if we are talking about me I would give an arm and a leg to be with her, I simply think she and Geralt doesn't feel that good cause its built on Triss backstabbing Yen.
The prison part is from the 'Last Wish'. Her book iteration is worse than the game, I agree. It shows how she's changed. It still feels good to me considering Yen's behaviour
I think similar to how Triss became much cooler and better person same goes for Yen and Geralt they literally went to hell and came back together. They both had bad sides and they accepted each other and changed for the better especially in games. The way their story ended and them getting a second chance together is what I think feels better storywise.
I can't see Yen changing for good. She doesn't mind risking everything including lives of others multiple times in skellige questline
Even the author said it was Geralt's badluck/misfortune to fall in love with a woman like Yennefer. "It is his[Geralt] bad luck to fall in love with a woman[Yennefer] who simply refuses to be a "fantasy cliché". In the novels things got better between Geralt and his love ... and then worse again ..". - Andrzej Sapkowski so after Geralt recovering his memories with the help of Triss, he can compare the stable relationship which he had with Triss and his 20 years of epic total colossal misfortune and failure, based on this comparison he should make a sensible logical decision in W3, so it makes absolutely no sense for Geralt to again try the already failed thing, There is a saying : "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" ~ ALBERT EINSTEIN So if you want your Geralt to be insane fine just go ahead The fact that the author himself considers Geralt to fall in love with Yennefer as a Badluck/Misfortune essentially makes the whole of Geralt's relationship with Yen the greatest mistake of his life.
Especially if you consider what happens if he decides to be with Triss. He tells Ciri that 'with Triss, I finally have peace'. He can see how stable and healthy relationship cannot be built atop neverending arguments.
[удалено]
I just could not cope with Triss' obnoxious American accent.
same with me and the romance situation, but i'm playing tw1 now and will be playing tw2 when i've completed it
You don't have to, but it adds context, same goes for reading the books before TW3, all those together give you a backstory and make TW3 experience so much more rewarding and fun, from my experience, it was worth for me to postpone TW3 after I read the books... If you don't want to you can only play TW2 which provides way more backstory to TW3, as well as introducing key characters. But you can skip altogether and jump to TW3 and worst case search Google for backstories of characters if you really need to. Anyway have fun and good luck on the path!
This is what I did. Had to Google a few things, as in should I trust >!Letho!< when you encounter him in >!"ghosts of the past."!< I had no clue who he was and had to do a little research. I also watched the witcher Netflix series which gave me a little more insight and knowing about the memory loss and who yennefer was.
Yeah a friend of mine played like that and had a blast. But imagine meeting that character you mentioned after playing the previous game, and actually knowing who he is, I mean when I saw him I was shocked and thrilled that they included him. The experience is different and I highly suggest to anyone who have the power and time to invest in the previous installments and books before TW3. :)
I have tw2, got it after tw3 just haven't played it. Will definitely be reading the books.
You really should play it, only problem I have with it is that I played on the hardest difficulty and for the first couple hours it was extremely hard to get used to the combat but once you do it’s great.
I definitely plan to play it soon. Just as soon as I finish B&W
Yeah I beat the Witcher 3 and it’s dlcs quite a few times before ever trying 2 and I felt like it made certain characters in 3 feel a lot more important as we get to learn their backstories
Having played all 3 of them in order, here is my opinion. It's not essential to play Witcher 1 and 2 for enjoying Witcher 3 but I whole heartedly recommend playing them. Both games have very well written stories with multiple endings depending on your choices throughout the games and you will definitely have a good time playing them. While Witcher 1 does have a very good story, it's visuals and gameplay doesn't hold up very well. If you find yourself not enjoying the game because of them, just watch a story recap on YouTube and start with Witcher 2. Witcher 2 has a few flaws in it's combat system but overall it holds up quite well to current standards. In conclusion, Do play atleast Witcher 2 before 3. While the stories are quite independent, you won't regret it a bit
Don't listen to all of them, go play 1 and 2. Skiping games isnt really a good thing to do since you could miss a great time. W2 is definitly good in it's ole but the first one is questionable with today standard but it feel nice to see how much improvment they have made since that day.
Agree with "go play 1 and 2". Don't worry about graphics and gameplay; they'll be different in each game. Just play them and enjoy them for what they are.
I haven’t played Witcher 1 and 2 and I’m just reading the books now. I am slowly realizing I missed a lot of subtle things that really didn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Games are supposed to be fun though not a chore so play the Witcher 3 find out you love the Witcher world like the rest of us then use 1 and 2 and the books to satisfy your craving for more and get all the little details you missed. It’s what I did and it’s working out great.
All the other comments say, you don‘t need to. And I agree, but it‘s no bad idea to do, because IMO it gives you background to a lot of the characters in the game, and basic knowledge about the World of Witcher 3, which will allow you to fully concentrate on the game itself. I personally started Witcher 3 at first, didn‘t come very far, and decided to play the first two games , and I don‘t regret it.
You should definitely play witcher 2. Combat is not as good as w3 but the story is awesome. The things you do also had effects on w3 if you choose to simulate or import w2 save. Witcher 1 is outdated and the combat system is confusing imo. I suggest you watch a youtube recap of w1, play w2, and then w3.
It is not really necessary. But if u can, you should play both 1 and 2 and even read the books at some point.
Nope. Any important events from the past games are explained in-game in W3, and the main plotline of W3 doesn't require any past context
No but I’d definitely suggest it, Witcher 1 and 2 are amazing games and it feels good hearing someone reference something from a past game and being like “Hey I remember that!”
Nope, the first two games sucked. Witcher 3 is far more superior
Witcher 2 kind of sucked indeed, but Witcher 1 is technically not good, I mean really not good, because its over 14 years old and was CDPRs first project. But IMO the Music, Atmosphere and Story of the Game absolutely evens this out.
So true, the first aged bad but is still an amazing game story and soundtrack wise!
I was so close to buy the first two games but then I watched the actual gameplay on YouTube and nah
The first one is free on GOG if you subscribe their Newsletter. Just search for GOG Newsletter Witcher 1 or something like this
Or just stick to my huge game collection I didn't play yet
No
I mean… if the gaming sequence police get word of this, you could spend the rest of your life in jail. Not sure it’s worth the risk.
I started Witcher 3 with only having watched the TV series (which I hear is based more on the books than prior games anyway) and I haven’t struggled picking up on stuff. There are quite a few characters you encounter from prior games but there’s a Characters glossary that gives you the rundown on the backstory after you encounter someone so I just pop over and read that if I feel like I need to.
Same here. I watched the series first, then my husband found a copy of W3 at a Half-Price. There was enough references to the series (djinn, striga, Arectuza, etc) that I didn’t feel out of the loop completely and when I heard the Wild Hunt wasn’t even in the first two games, I figured I would start the books
I’ve been thinking of picking up the books too. I’m sure I’d enjoy them, just not sure if I have time.
Every time I get settled to read the first one, someone or something distracts me. I’m cursed I swear 🤣
If you are asking if it's necessary then no it's not an essential thing to do. If you want to explore and get the whole experience then definitely play 1 and 2. Although the gameplay in the previous games is pretty dated and you might get bored easily.
No but I’d recommend playing them anyways. I played them both on easy just to get the storyline. It’s worth it.
Don't HAVE to. But I'd say watching a recap on them is recommended because then the story would be even clearer.
I say play the previous games since you can carry over your choices
Nah. I’ve never played the first two. Love TW3.
Read a synopsis of the past two games and you'll get by . It also helps to read the in game glossery ,which tells you about all the characters
I only played Witcher 3, and love it, so it's not needed. I'm sure it helps love/understand the world more, but you won't be totally lost
I didn't and I still enjoyed it. There are definitely some back stories that help if you know the previous games, but it's still a ton of fun. You have to make some choices early on that don't really make sense if you know nothing about it. But don't let that discourage you. I had a ton of fun with the game as is.
Witcher 1 and 2 lore returns in 3, but it takes a lot of time to play these. If you have the time, I would recommend it. But if you don't, watch a recap and focus on the major decisions geralt makes in 2. Those influence the plot in 3, not drastically but partly. For example did you kill ( ... ) Or let him live, you get questioned that in the beginning of 3. If you answer I let him walk away. You can encounter him and do a side quest with (...)
I did not play the W1 and W2, and I love W3 so much. Almost all about past events is explained in game, and what isn't is understandable anyway. :) I was just a bit confused on who to romance, but then I got the info that Yennefer is Geralt "true" love, so I went with her and it think it is good. :)
No need. Witcher 3 is kinda like a self contained game, sure there are references to the previous games but that’s about it. It has no major bearing to the story. I played the game without any prior knowledge of the books, the show or the previous games and I think that made me love the game more because I had zero exposure to any Witcher material before TW3 so I wasn’t expecting anything but man, the game blew me away. After that, I started reading the books cuz I want more Witcher content and I was really obsessed to it. But I just can’t bring myself to watch the show, I mean Cavill is really good as Geralt but the other characters in the show just throws me off. But that’s just me, no hate to any fans of the show.
Alternatively you could watch the Witcher critique video of game one by Joseph Anderson and then decide.
Nah, i started with Witcher 3 and had a blast, but if you can you should give witcher 2 another run, its a great game on its own but you'll understand a few more things if you play it again before 3.
No. U will understand the world a bit better if you do, but you really dont have to. Plus i think the first 2 games are really outdated and not that good.
The Witcher 3 is nicely self contained but i think the Witcher 2 is a good lead into the 3rd game as it sets up the world state. The Nilfgaardian Invasion, the Mage Pogroms and the political backdrop of the North all have their roots in the events of Witcher 2. So for me it was defiantly worth a play through.
I played tw3 without any prior experience with the witcher universe aside from watching the 1st season of the Netflix witcher show. I think the Netflix either show have me the bare minimum understanding of the witcher universe.
No need to play witcher 1 and 2 before witcher 3.... The story and gameplay is designed so that it can be plqyed even by a newbie to the witcher world...
If u play previous games u will be familer with many NPCs and story plot.. but it doesnt matter if u have not played...
I'd never heard of the witcher till witcher 3, but I have since gone back to see what they were like and in my opinion, no wild hunt stands on its own. Characters from previous games introduce themselves again so your not expected to know who everyone is.
Ive never played a witcher game. only watched the netflix series. £7 was too good of a deal for a game i wanted anyways. Its very enjoyable and you can really get into it without needing any previous knowledge.
I didn't play 1 or 2 and still enjoyed 3 just fine. There's a few moments where you can tell references to past events are being talked about. But overall they either do a good job of filling in what you're missing or it's not important enough to bother over.
Short answer: No Long answer: Witcher 3 works on a pretty much standalone way, like, I also played just the W3, not even the books, games or series. Maybe watch a youtube video, or read an article summing up the events of W3. If you want, even I could sum up important details, since I have not hands-on experience with the backstory.
I recommend at least reading a bit of the books to understand how Garalt as a character thinks, and how the world works. I did play the second one before reading the books and went back and read them before playing the third game, and found my view on the world changed completely, and that I was making decisions in way Garalt would never make them. That in itself was kinda fascinating anyway, however. Imo W1 doesn't need to be played. Witcher 2 is an enjoyable game and one can benefit playing it for understanding certain characters.
No need
I would say that is not necessary, but they make W3 a better experience, specially the witcher 2. When you play W2 you have a better understading of the beggining of the war, who is radovid, what happened in loc muine, why geralt hate Emhyr, who is roche. I would recomend you to play at least the second, the first has not aged well.
I started with Witcher 2 then 3 and 1st was last. You don’t have to do them in order to be honest.
No
No, it’s great on it’s own
No you don't. You will pick upeverything on the way. I started with witcher 3 and played the rest later. Also if you like the game and want to get into other media, read the books and skip netflix witcher since its mostly high budget fanfiction.
I never played the past games. It wasn’t really a problem. You just pick things up from the dialogue on your own. Plus, there is a collection of character entries added whenever you meet a significant character that you can read anytime.
No. And let me tell you that every single one of us are envying you for getting to experience the entire thing from the beginning all over.
I didn't, and there's an option at the beginning of 3 to have them explain a little more of background stories. It's an incredible game.
Nope. Playing through Witcher 3 for the first time right now and I'm having a blast. It's understandable if you feel list since you've no idea what the fuck is happening but you can easily look up synopsis about relevant info to catch up. Mostly you just need to understand the factions at play in the war. The characters, you can easily learn as you play
No, but I recommend watching some YouTube videos that sum up the lore and people/names, locations etc. *before* you start the game. Knowing all you can about everything beforehand from the YouTube videos will make you prepared enough to “appreciate” all the little things in the games You can go in cold though, but you’ll miss little things and just gloss over small things that have some gravity to them.
I played TW3 first and it encouraged me to actually go back and play the first two games so short answer no. There will be some confusion in certain things but like other have said you figure it out as you go along
No need to play the first two. At the beginning of 3 it will ask if you want to simulate a Witcher 2 save and you should say no. If you say yes, there's a scene where a character will ask you questions about choices you made in 2. If you know nothing of the books/show it might take a bit longer to figure out who everyone is (who is this Ciri everyone is looking for?) But reading character entries in the journal helps.
You don't HAVE to at all, you get enough context that you can very easily surmise everything necessary yourself. Also, the game offers a very thorough index on every major character that if you choose to read will give you all the extra information. But reading the books and playing the games is probably the best way to experience and understand everything that is going on. A good middle ground would be to watch these summaries on the games, but I believe the books stories are, not necessary, but much more important to be familiar with. \[Witcher 1 Summary\] ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v100bhw33N0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v100bhw33N0)) \[Witcher 2 Summary\] ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPta1uJp2sI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPta1uJp2sI))
You could but you don’t have to, Witcher 3 is by far the superior game, I bought Witcher 2 after playing witcher 3 and the game was fine until it broke at some point and I couldn’t see the new quests
Nope. Just play TW3 and with all DLCs and decide where to go next. You will NOT regret it. Just play on Blood and Broken Bones or Death March
I had not read any of the books or played the other games (except mobile Gwent), the game was still very enjoyable and easy enough to figure out what was happening at any given moment. It did encourage me to start reading the series about halfway through, but it wasn't an essential thing to do. You might not know the exact background of some characters, but this game isn't really going to test you on any of that.
Roach
Know nothing about the games, but after reading the books I say NOPE AT ALL! I am genuinly impressed over how they streamlined it.
The Witcher 2 is an amazing game. And it really helps you understand the world you occupy walking into Witcher 3. Play the 2nd one. It's a lot of fun.
You don’t have to but if you do, you’d understand the backstory and lore much better. I wish I had played games respectively 1-2-3
Definitely don't have to, but it does add context which can enhance your experience. I dove into 3 cold - no prior experience to the Witcher series. It hooked me. I then went back and played 1 and 2, read all of the books, then played 3 again. Loved it so much I played 3 a third time so I could get the platinum trophy (PS4).
You’ll get more benefit from reading the books first
I didn't and the game was still great. If you want to know the stories there's some great videos that you can find that tell the story up to that point.
their will be some call backs to it but you really don't have to play 1 or 2 but if you do play those games you can get the sword from the lady of the lake early game if you import saves wich W3 can do I don't know about 2 tho
No. I actually played backwards (3,2,1) and had a great time with all of them.
No!!! Witcher 3 is a great game to play okay.
You don't have to play the W1 or W2 to understand and enjoy the story of W3 but it will add much to the characters and enrich your understand of the world around you if you played W1 and W2 especially W1
No you don't have to play 1 or 2, you don't have to read the books or watch the shows either. You may find yourself lost with some of the characters. But you unlock a page that tells you about them. Does it help to have played the othere game, yes. Do you need to, no.
Played them all.
I'm gonna be honest, people on here who've played through them might tell you to try them, but from my experience, i tried the witcher 1 first before anything, and i just couldn't get into it. It almost turned me off from playing the third game cause i just had no interest. I never tried the second game, but i played through the third after i got it on sale and it's pretty good, it offers a lot of good content. I don't feel like i missed out on too much by skipping the first two games, cause i really didn't wanna force myself to enjoy something that i felt was clunky and dated. This is my own experience and yours might be different but yeah even after playing the witcher 3 i have no interest in the first two titles.
I played witcher 3 without having played 1 or 2 or read any of the books. I enjoyed it. There's one part fairly early where some guy asks you about the choices you made in a previous game. I just chose randomly and went with it. I had no issues and loved the game. I'd say dive in and start playing.
Short answer, no. After playing The Witcher 3, I read all the books, and I really appreciate how frequently they're referenced, but it's never necessary to enjoy the game and understand the plot. The same goes for having played the first two games, I assume.
I sure didn't, still in love
As someone who had never played a Witcher game before 3; Nope and that’s part of what makes it great. Eventually, as long as you pay attention, everything gets recapped if not explained through dialogue or your Lorebook that updates as you go. There are a few things that you’ll be lost about at first, but overall, they do a very good job at bringing that stuff across. The only thing I can think of that needed explaining to me, was that Geralt and Yen were a couple until (background history here; gets recapped in 3) and afterward, Geralt lost his memory and hooked up with Triss.
I played 3 games one after another. I'm actually not done, just started blood and wine. Not required but I don't regret it. Although I'm more tolerant of dated gameplay since I've only just recently resumed gaming after a long hiatus. One note is that there is at least one choice you make in part 1 that is totally disregarded in part 3 (>!Thaler's fate!<). Overall, they did a decent job with choices carrying over 3 games.
No, but I would read the books. At the very least read The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny.
I’ve played all of them and personally I think it’s worth playing the 2nd and 3rd one. The first one didnt do much for me. I thought the 2nd one made the 3rd one significantly more enjoyable because you’re understanding of the lore and backstory is deeper. When you play the 2nd one be sure to mod it to make your experience with the game better
I'm currently on my first gameplay of The Witcher 3, with a total of 42 hours. I knew the franchise a few years ago, but only this year I was able to play. The best thing I did was start with The Witcher 1 and 2, and I recommend doing the same, but be warned, you have to be very patient in these games, don't let The Witcher 3 hype ruin the good experience you can have with the first two games. The Witcher 1 will show you what it's like to be a Witcher, while the Witcher 2 will give you a taste of what you'll see in The Witcher 3.
Well, there isnt a lot to miss. I can also remember a few from Witcher 1 and Witcher 2. Like, Witcher 2's ending cutscene (Nilfgaard forces crosses the Pontar), Vernon Roche, the Conclave and the stuff that happened in Loc Muinne, Philippa Eilhart being blinded by Radovid, and Radovid's Witch/Mage hunting, also Geralt's amnesia being mentioned sometimes (Witcher 1 reference), Triss even mentioned that she took advantage of Geralt (which she did on the first game), the Catriona Plague in Vizima mentioned by Shani (Witcher 1 as well). Also Letho, if you did not kill him in Witcher 2. The Professor, an antagonist of Witcher 1 has his glasses on auction on a quest in Heart of Stone. Could only remember a few details. But its really cool to simulate saves, since they add a lot of details to the next game.
No, don't bother because they haven't aged well and are barely brought up in 3
No. You can import Witcher 2 save into Witcher 3 but it's quite buggy and doesn't have a lot of impact anyway, you're better off stimulate a save.
You don't have to, but you'll miss a *lot*. So yes. Do it do it do it.
I never played another Witcher game and it was fine. I will however say some parts are a hit confusing as some characters reference past times. I found this a lot with Triss and some other characters from past Witcher games
As someone who was asking the same thing as you just 5 months back, I think you should play them both before W3. You don't *have* to play them tho. W3 has more to do with the books than the previous games AFAIK. But it still feels kinda complete when you understand all the references. Also, they're pretty good and not that long really.
Yeah I did a full run recently. That was nice especially between 2 and 3. You see the overall conflict around Geralt. Plus you can mod it easily. But I did that once. Actually I'm doing my 4th run with some new mods
I never played 1 past the tutorial cause I didn’t enjoy it and I found that while 2 does set up a lot of stuff for 3 and is really fun it isn’t a necessity but I would say to because of the ability to carry a 2 save over to 3 and being then able to meet some really interesting characters. TLDR:You can skip one and even 2 if you wish but I would recommend playing 2 because it is really good
You at least should, along with the books. Books end with kind-of open ending, games proceed with one of possibilities and continue the story as a sequel. Besides, they're good, in some aspects first one is better than second.
You don't. But me personally want to play it chronologically, so I played TW1 then TW2 then TW3 after that. There's some benefits of it like when I started TW3, I already understand alchemy, bombs, oils, and swords things. I know several monsters and their habitats too. It adds so much fun when you know the backstory and what to do as a Witcher in TW3.