Happy 10th Anniversary to The Witcher series!

[CrusaderX]

In response to post #54540603.

Cammada wrote:

Good timing, I have bought all 3 games of The Witcher series.

 

Does the story continue from first game to second to third? I just want to know if it worth to start playing the first one or jump to third one?

Give the first one a try. If you are ok with the gameplay (which hasn't aged very well), the stuff you learn about the story and lore is pretty cool.
And the second game is actually pretty great by itself.

The story doesn't really continue, but there are a lot of referenced to 1 and 2 in 3.
And imo knowing them makes the wild hunt more enjoyable and gives it a much more familiar feel.

[nemeyeth]

I'd buy 'increased lod dlc' ;(

[CrusaderX]

In response to post #54544303.

urielz wrote: well... "highly moddable" is a very strong statement that does not apply to The Witcher series. As much as I like The Witcher 3 the modding scene is not good at all, tools are extremely limited.

I agree that "highly moddable" is a serious overstatement, and that the tools are limited, I think the modders have done a great job with what they have.
You can't completely transform TW3 like any of the elder scrolls/fallout games, but there are many improvements to be gained from mods.

[aufisch]

In response to post #54473018. #54474538, #54475508, #54500348, #54500393, #54509148, #54510778, #54514758, #54519098, #54523793, #54540833, #54546368 are all replies on the same post.

kn1ghtfall wrote: Ah, the Witcher... probably the only game series I can't stand and would never touch again. Waste of money. I still have the original DVDs somewhere...

pancakemix wrote: The fact that it came out in 2007 makes how s#*! it is even more inexcusable. A quick look at the other games released at that time reveals that games like Crysis, Bioshock, Team Fortress 2, Portal, Half Life 2 Episode Two, Super Mario Galaxy, Shivering Isles DLC for Oblivion, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl were release in the same year, not to mention the great games that came before. Even the "enhanced" edition is an awful, buggy mess. It's like an MMO without multiplayer. It's like a porno where the porn is as bad as the dialog and story (i.e. terrible).

Maybe The Witcher 2 and 3 are better, but with the Mass Effect-esque save game porting I can't bring myself to play the next games without beating the first, and I'd rather eat rusty razorblades.

SaulieSaul wrote: Well, I will avoid this one like a pregnant ex... thank you..

Faralai wrote: .

Faralai wrote: @kn1ghtfall Witcher the worst? Your insane and people should ignore your opinions as they are bad!

The third Witcher is the highest rated game for a reason, also won over 800 hundred award as it is the best rpg ever!

Velocerator wrote: The Witcher 1 is terrible. I don't care what anyone says it plays worse than a lot of games from the 90s. I haven't tried 3 yet but it seems to be leaps and bounds ahead of the first one.

Ethreon wrote: People should ignore both your opinions and just play the game themselves. It's not terrible, not the best game ever either, just a game. Get it and play it, cheap enough.

curseesruc wrote: The Witcher was rough around the edges, true, but there's still a good game in there if you can look past it's low production values. You can tell it's a low budget game made by a (then) inexperienced developer. But to write off the entire series? Please don't listen to this person, lol. At the very least, 2 and or 3 are worth a try. Personally my favorite is 2, but I can agree 3 is an overall better game. Both stellar games, and 3 has an active modding community that make an already great core product superior.

Julian23561 wrote: Oh the original Witcher, although the gameplay was downright terrible, it still made up for a really good story. You just had to endure a really bad start.

kn1ghtfall wrote: @Faralai Yes, I said the Witcher series sucks in my opinion. You should avoid forums if you can't stand opinions that aren't exactly the same as yours.

Zupremo wrote: i felt like that too at first but once you focus on the story the combat will be a bit more tolerable.

SaulieSaul wrote: Skyrim won 200 awards, and it's a borked mess.

I am not sure what you are talking about. I played the Witcher 1 back in the day and while it was buggy when it came first out, later on it ran mostly flawless and with way less bugs than for example Oblivion or Fallout, which by the way were both fixed by the community rather by the developer.
Also, while the combat system might not be stellar (but still much better than Morrowind, and yes it is a typical 3rd person combat design), the story is still very rich and interesting.

I am not saying The Witcher 1 is better than Oblivion, it is not, but I am saying it is a (now) mostly bug-free game with an interesting story. AND the choices you make in the game actually change the outcome of some relationships and will influence your options during the later game-play.

[Lilaeth]

In response to post #54473018. #54474538, #54475508, #54500348, #54500393, #54509148, #54510778, #54514758, #54519098, #54523793, #54540833, #54546368, #54573173 are all replies on the same post.

kn1ghtfall wrote: Ah, the Witcher... probably the only game series I can't stand and would never touch again. Waste of money. I still have the original DVDs somewhere...

pancakemix wrote: The fact that it came out in 2007 makes how s#*! it is even more inexcusable. A quick look at the other games released at that time reveals that games like Crysis, Bioshock, Team Fortress 2, Portal, Half Life 2 Episode Two, Super Mario Galaxy, Shivering Isles DLC for Oblivion, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl were release in the same year, not to mention the great games that came before. Even the "enhanced" edition is an awful, buggy mess. It's like an MMO without multiplayer. It's like a porno where the porn is as bad as the dialog and story (i.e. terrible).

Maybe The Witcher 2 and 3 are better, but with the Mass Effect-esque save game porting I can't bring myself to play the next games without beating the first, and I'd rather eat rusty razorblades.

SaulieSaul wrote: Well, I will avoid this one like a pregnant ex... thank you..

Faralai wrote: .

Faralai wrote: @kn1ghtfall Witcher the worst? Your insane and people should ignore your opinions as they are bad!

The third Witcher is the highest rated game for a reason, also won over 800 hundred award as it is the best rpg ever!

Velocerator wrote: The Witcher 1 is terrible. I don't care what anyone says it plays worse than a lot of games from the 90s. I haven't tried 3 yet but it seems to be leaps and bounds ahead of the first one.

Ethreon wrote: People should ignore both your opinions and just play the game themselves. It's not terrible, not the best game ever either, just a game. Get it and play it, cheap enough.

curseesruc wrote: The Witcher was rough around the edges, true, but there's still a good game in there if you can look past it's low production values. You can tell it's a low budget game made by a (then) inexperienced developer. But to write off the entire series? Please don't listen to this person, lol. At the very least, 2 and or 3 are worth a try. Personally my favorite is 2, but I can agree 3 is an overall better game. Both stellar games, and 3 has an active modding community that make an already great core product superior.

Julian23561 wrote: Oh the original Witcher, although the gameplay was downright terrible, it still made up for a really good story. You just had to endure a really bad start.

kn1ghtfall wrote: @Faralai Yes, I said the Witcher series sucks in my opinion. You should avoid forums if you can't stand opinions that aren't exactly the same as yours.

Zupremo wrote: i felt like that too at first but once you focus on the story the combat will be a bit more tolerable.

SaulieSaul wrote: Skyrim won 200 awards, and it's a borked mess.

aufisch wrote: I am not sure what you are talking about. I played the Witcher 1 back in the day and while it was buggy when it came first out, later on it ran mostly flawless and with way less bugs than for example Oblivion or Fallout, which by the way were both fixed by the community rather by the developer.
Also, while the combat system might not be stellar (but still much better than Morrowind, and yes it is a typical 3rd person combat design), the story is still very rich and interesting.

I am not saying The Witcher 1 is better than Oblivion, it is not, but I am saying it is a (now) mostly bug-free game with an interesting story. AND the choices you make in the game actually change the outcome of some relationships and will influence your options during the later game-play.

And yet, despite its faults, I still love it and still play it. Each to their own, I suppose.

[Kasmar]

18 years for Everquest and even longer for Ultima Online. I was a player support person on both games. I was a Senior Guide for Everquest. I had a crew of 40 guides on the Bristlebane Server. In the beginning there were 4 Senior Guides on that server. I turned off the lights when the guide program fell apart. I am an avid gamer and I have played most of the games out there. Excluding first person shooters which I do not like. I usually mod the games I play ... Not my mods but mods from the creators. Thanks guys.

[GreenAmaranthine]

In response to post #54473018. #54474538, #54475508, #54500348, #54500393, #54509148, #54510778, #54514758, #54519098, #54523793, #54540833, #54546368, #54573173, #54601663 are all replies on the same post.

kn1ghtfall wrote: Ah, the Witcher... probably the only game series I can't stand and would never touch again. Waste of money. I still have the original DVDs somewhere...

pancakemix wrote: The fact that it came out in 2007 makes how s#*! it is even more inexcusable. A quick look at the other games released at that time reveals that games like Crysis, Bioshock, Team Fortress 2, Portal, Half Life 2 Episode Two, Super Mario Galaxy, Shivering Isles DLC for Oblivion, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl were release in the same year, not to mention the great games that came before. Even the "enhanced" edition is an awful, buggy mess. It's like an MMO without multiplayer. It's like a porno where the porn is as bad as the dialog and story (i.e. terrible).

Maybe The Witcher 2 and 3 are better, but with the Mass Effect-esque save game porting I can't bring myself to play the next games without beating the first, and I'd rather eat rusty razorblades.

SaulieSaul wrote: Well, I will avoid this one like a pregnant ex... thank you..

Faralai wrote: .

Faralai wrote: @kn1ghtfall Witcher the worst? Your insane and people should ignore your opinions as they are bad!

The third Witcher is the highest rated game for a reason, also won over 800 hundred award as it is the best rpg ever!

Velocerator wrote: The Witcher 1 is terrible. I don't care what anyone says it plays worse than a lot of games from the 90s. I haven't tried 3 yet but it seems to be leaps and bounds ahead of the first one.

Ethreon wrote: People should ignore both your opinions and just play the game themselves. It's not terrible, not the best game ever either, just a game. Get it and play it, cheap enough.

curseesruc wrote: The Witcher was rough around the edges, true, but there's still a good game in there if you can look past it's low production values. You can tell it's a low budget game made by a (then) inexperienced developer. But to write off the entire series? Please don't listen to this person, lol. At the very least, 2 and or 3 are worth a try. Personally my favorite is 2, but I can agree 3 is an overall better game. Both stellar games, and 3 has an active modding community that make an already great core product superior.

Julian23561 wrote: Oh the original Witcher, although the gameplay was downright terrible, it still made up for a really good story. You just had to endure a really bad start.

kn1ghtfall wrote: @Faralai Yes, I said the Witcher series sucks in my opinion. You should avoid forums if you can't stand opinions that aren't exactly the same as yours.

Zupremo wrote: i felt like that too at first but once you focus on the story the combat will be a bit more tolerable.

SaulieSaul wrote: Skyrim won 200 awards, and it's a borked mess.

aufisch wrote: I am not sure what you are talking about. I played the Witcher 1 back in the day and while it was buggy when it came first out, later on it ran mostly flawless and with way less bugs than for example Oblivion or Fallout, which by the way were both fixed by the community rather by the developer.
Also, while the combat system might not be stellar (but still much better than Morrowind, and yes it is a typical 3rd person combat design), the story is still very rich and interesting.

I am not saying The Witcher 1 is better than Oblivion, it is not, but I am saying it is a (now) mostly bug-free game with an interesting story. AND the choices you make in the game actually change the outcome of some relationships and will influence your options during the later game-play.

Lilaeth wrote: And yet, despite its faults, I still love it and still play it. Each to their own, I suppose.

The original was absolute trash and while I could see how people could enjoy it I didn't like what I played of 2 personally, largely because of the lame combat. 3 is one of the best games I've ever played, though.

The save transfer thing isn't really that important, 3 has an option to simulate a w2 savegame anyway via an npc interrogating you at a fairly early point in the story for the handful of relevant choices you can make in w2 that can affect dialogue. As far as I can tell, the impact of these choices in w3 is nonetheless minimal, but if you want context for the choices you make you can always watch a let's play or read a walkthrough of the first two games.

[yzerman19]

When are they going to have another sale on it? I missed this by a day...

[HughGiOh]

In response to post #54540603. #54556513 is also a reply to the same post.

Cammada wrote:

Good timing, I have bought all 3 games of The Witcher series.

 

Does the story continue from first game to second to third? I just want to know if it worth to start playing the first one or jump to third one?

CrusaderX wrote: Give the first one a try. If you are ok with the gameplay (which hasn't aged very well), the stuff you learn about the story and lore is pretty cool.
And the second game is actually pretty great by itself.

The story doesn't really continue, but there are a lot of referenced to 1 and 2 in 3.
And imo knowing them makes the wild hunt more enjoyable and gives it a much more familiar feel.

The story does continue. CrusaderX speaks false. You port your savegames from the Witcher 1 to its sequel, and then to 3.

[poksar1]

In response to post #54540603. #54556513, #54691128 are all replies on the same post.

Cammada wrote:

Good timing, I have bought all 3 games of The Witcher series.

 

Does the story continue from first game to second to third? I just want to know if it worth to start playing the first one or jump to third one?

CrusaderX wrote: Give the first one a try. If you are ok with the gameplay (which hasn't aged very well), the stuff you learn about the story and lore is pretty cool.
And the second game is actually pretty great by itself.

The story doesn't really continue, but there are a lot of referenced to 1 and 2 in 3.
And imo knowing them makes the wild hunt more enjoyable and gives it a much more familiar feel.

HughGiOh wrote: The story does continue. CrusaderX speaks false. You port your savegames from the Witcher 1 to its sequel, and then to 3.

technically,it does continue but not that strictly,yes you can import saves,but the main story itself is vastly different in each game