Should I play the previous games before Witcher 3?

[Anatolianer, MD]

The title says it all, I wanted to check the reviews but they're all bugged on the entire platform and show only blank boxes.

[Jon The Necromancer]

I mean it's better if you experience the previous games (especially the witcher 2) before playing this, but you can watch recap videos of the recent 2 games and you'll be good to go.

[Hotlatino46]

If you plan to play all the games in the series, it would be better if you start from the first, because the graphics change a lot and you would no longer give importance to the previous ones, also all the games in the series have a good role or a good story you should start with the first

[D'amarr from Darshiva]

If I were you, I would skip the two prequels. They are not worth the hassle. Of course, you will meet some story characters that were part of the older games, and there are references to other NPCs, too, but the Wikipedia entries for the games give a sufficiently good summary of the story:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_(video_game)#Plot
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_2:_Assassins_of_Kings#Plot

[Jakuzi]

no and you shouldn't even play this one

[tramper]

Originally posted by Jakuzi:

no and you shouldn't even play this one

Because ?

[AkoTaba_]

es alto juego papa que decis

[ChefJefe]

I'm over 20 hours into my playthrough in this and I haven't played either of the previous games. So far there have only been a few references to the previous two games in dialogue, and there has been nothing I feel I'm missing, but if you do want to know what happened previously you can always watch a summary or playthrough on youtube or some other website.

[HacIFather08]

U MUST PLAY WİTCHER 2 AT LEAST

[TripSin]

You don't have to or need to.

Should you? That's up to your subjective ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ taste man, we can't decide that for you. I personally played all three (as they came out though) and I loved all of them. The first one has very dated graphics at this point and some people didn't like the combat mechanics (I personally didn't have issue with it) but it has a great story (arguably the strongest of the three imo). It also has sex cards lol. Second is more up to date graphically and mechanically and has an interesting story with interesting characters as well.

So yeah, you could try 1 and if you're not digging it skip it and go to 2 and if you're not digging that go to 3 - but if you don't like 2, I have a feeling you won't like 3 either, though it's possible.

[AkoTaba_]

callense la boca
aguante el the witcher

[Ivans]

your don't need to, but you will have a better experience

[Bandy]

Originally posted by Ivans:

your don't need to, but you will have a better experience

^that...

It is your call of course (and see you aren't getting an answer here, LOL...), do you have time on your hands to spend? W1 because of its age and combat style IMHO is tough to get into, but players say good story (I never finished it) but W2 is really a precursor to W3 and worth the effort though the regions are narrow and not open world.

W3 is not truly open world either but more so than W2...

[M]

I would agree to the posters, who wrote you should play at least witcher 2. the graphics are better than the real ugly first witcher, but W2 is very linear and practically not compareable to witcher 3, except that geralt of rivia is still the witcher.

[Shun]

Didn't play Witcher 1 or 2 so im kinda lost in parts of course, but im still enjoying the hell out of the game. Got 50 hours on it and i didn't even finish the campaign. Whether you should buy the game or not really only depends on if you want to. I don't think you need to have played Witcher 1 or 2 but at least know if it's the kind of game you are going to like.

[Bandy]

One thing to add, if you are going to play W3 you can't go back to play W2, well of course you can if you want, but it will be disappointing after 3...