Hello,
wanted to ask, if it is necessary (by necessary i mean, to understand the story) to play Witcher 1 before 2 ?

11 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

The only correct way to play a game series is to start from the beginning, unless there is a reboot.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Reboot has been around for a while now.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Not necessary, but enhances the story world, and the characters. First game essentially introduces the main character and his friends to you, and intros the world and it's races and their states/interactions.

But as far as pure story goes, witcher 2 starts a new one rather than being a direct continuation of the second.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Dont play 1 just play 2 ;D
But if you have 1 and 2 you can start 1 and after 2

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Play 1 then 2. First Witcher is quite short so it won't be problem and story will continue (and of course better beggining in second with save from first).

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Actually, Witcher 1 was a little bit longer than W2.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

As long as i remember it took me some less time or maybe it was just so good I thought it was shorter :D

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Maybe you didn't do any of the worthless side quests in the first that only got you money.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think W1 was superior to W2 in everything, including combat (my personal preference tho). W2 focuses on constant action, I didn't need to use a single potion thorough the game, signs were also pretty much optional. All you need to do is to draw your sword and keep mashing mouse buttons in the right order. While you simply need to use potions in W1 to actually progress in the game, signs are almost necessity and I find combat more challenging.
I'm not even talking about the story... while the main story line in W2 was quite good, the side quests were plain stupid and boring. I'm not saying that all W1 quests are brilliant, but most of them... are fun... and rewarding. There were certain... ehm, cards, that you could get for completing certain.. "quests"... delicate quests.
BTW I played W1 way before W2. Maybe that's why I don't like W2, those two games are really different and I expected something else from W2. Also, W1 was one of very small amount of games, that were dubbed in my native language.
Oh yeah, and I finished W1 2-3 times and started even more "new games" (I really like the early part of the game). While I finished W2 only once.
Well, I can't say that W2 is a bad game. But personally, I don't like it.

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Agreed. W1 was much more enjoyable once you adapt the combat system. In W2 it got more chaotic and consolelike. Another huge difference - potions. In W1 I really needed to drink them in some situaions, in W2 however the only ones needed were "cats" too see stuff in the darkness, other than that, no use for them. Story was fine in both games, the lenght of games satisfactory if you take time to do some sidequests.
But the thing that was the most annoying was W2 client stability. It kept crashing every once in a while during game saves. Had to do some tricks with memory, deleting older saves, changing the subtitles to different language (my personal favourite) to get the game to work properly.
All in all, in my opinion W1 > W2

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I would hope not, because I tried Witcher 1 and I absolutely couldn't stand it. The flow, the combat, the... hnngh
Damn you, sales!

11 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Closed 11 years ago by Thoosa.