Play as Standalone or as Trilogy?

[KaZudra]

topic says all

[Living Broscillograph]

Originally posted by Living Broscillograph:

Originally posted by GunnDawg:

I picked this game up for sale today and while it's still downloading I got to thinking "wait, this is the third game in a series, I'm gonna be lost"

You won't be lost (CDPR did awesome work to make the game easy to learn and play in comfort for people not familiar nor with the trilogy nor with the books which cover the story before the events of trilogy happen) but you're gonna be hated because of perfunctory understanding of the big story.

P.S.: See Yen vs Triss holy wars on forums for an example of ultimate misunderstanding between only-TW3 (and/or TW2-TW3) players and those who at least played the trilogy.

Originally posted by Living Broscillograph:

All trilogy tells a single story split into three major acts. So in terms of involving into the story it's absolutely worth playing all three games.

You can "play" the first two games on YouTube but it's better to play them yourself because many reviewers and letsplayers miss details in which the devil is (like for some reason many of them think that sex scenes are important content and shouldn't be avoided. However, somewhere such scenes hide important plot details).

In terms of gameplay TW1 is like SW:KotOR but in real-time instead of turn-based (and almost without companions). It's graphics are much better compared to KotOR series :)
TW2 steps towards console players thus its controls can annoy on PC (especially after TW1).
While last difficulty of TW1 makes a player understand the importance of oil / bombs / alchemy mechanics, TW2 teaches to roll away and hit with timings.

These skills are important to play TW3 on the last difficulty (which is very enjoying if you went through the first two games). So it's also worth to play them from this point of view :)

Also, if you'd want to start not from TW3:

Originally posted by Living Broscillograph:

I'd say either play in order, either play TW3.
TW1 and TW2 are tied very close to each other, playing only one of them might pervert your view on some characters.
TW3 is designed to be friendly to newcomers not familiar with the trilogy, its glossary contains enough info to build a perfunctory picture of what's going on and who are all those people. TW1 and TW2 can help to build a good half of the picture though.

And if you'd want to play the expansions of TW3:

Originally posted by Living Broscillograph:

Hearts of Stone is meant to be played before you finish the main story (as it contains a hint on what to do to achieve a certain ending), but it is not required to do so, you can do it anytime, even after the main story is finished.
Blood & Whine contains some spoilers for the main story finale, and its own ending kind of depends on how your main story has ended, so B&W should be started after you have finished the base game.

[Sunsetter]

All 3

[Memphis291]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

The third game was designed with newcomers in mind. You can and should play all three games, and possibly read the books and short stories as well, if the lore interests you. But you don't NEED to play the first two in order to understand or enjoy the third.

I somewhat dont agree with you. I was totally new to the Witcher Lore when I started the Game. I played through the introduction until the first time you get to Novigrad. I wasnt satisfied with the backgroundinformation I had, or rather not had, thus I played all the way through the first and second Game which turned out to be a good Idea, because suddenley I knew a lot more about Geralt and its Companions and foes and the country it self...but the I started with the books and that was the best Idea I had becuase now the circle closes and everythings makes sense.

[Pieater]

Depends how indepth you want to get into the main story. I enjoyed playing the trilogy.

[Twelvefield]

W3 is more than enough, it stands alone reasonably well. The bits and pieces that depend on the previous games, etc. I find I don't need.

[HD-[18thGA.A] Sgt. Mera]

the 1st one is very outdated and the voice acting is hidous, don't waste your money. W2 having tried 3 times to get into it, I simply can't. I recommend skipping the first two and just watching some recaps or youtube playthrough. Despite fanboys opinions, the first two didn't do anywhere near as good at the 3rd.

[Twelvefield]

Well said!

Beyond that, playing these games takes TIME. If you have lots of that, then you may want to play all three games. If not, W3 takes plenty of time as it is.

I am not much into fantasy and magic, but let's face it: a good game is a good game and W3 is very good on its own.

[Kblocks]

w1 looks like dog sh1t, w2 was bearable and interesting enough for me to purchase the w3

[MrOrange]

I just looked at someone streaming 1st and second part and I did not like it. Its an old ass game, specially the Witcher 1. The witcher 2 was kind of okay but not enough to bother playing.

[MrOrange]

So, you dont need to. But you can