Is it better to play the games in Chronological order?

[SweetsSparrow]

I'm new to the witcher series. I was wondering if its better to play the games in order to better understand the plot?

[max.strauss]

Originally posted by SweetsSparrow:

I'm new to the witcher series. I was wondering if its better to play the games in order to better understand the plot?

If you want to watch Game of Thrones, you can start with season 8. Sure, but it could be disappointing.

Of course it is better to start with TW1. The question is rather: Can you do it with pleasure and success? We don't know enough about your favorite games, skills and ambitions to be able to provide a competent answer to your question. So you have to answer a few questions for yourself:

Think about this and check the following before starting your experiment:

• Are you a notorious Lclick-maniac or button masher? Don't play this game, it will drive you crazy.
  
• Are you a Navel of the World-player who loses his composure if anything is different compared to his favorite games? Don't play it; you will drive us crazy.
  
• Are you accustomed to playing old games? The graphics - well, they acquire getting used to them.

When you want to play the game because you are sure that these points are irrelevant for you then welcome to a very nice oldie. You should know some things before:

The combat system of TW1 is unusual, and many players feel an inner resistance. So you have to learn something before you are able to enjoy the combat. But it's worth while.

Lclick when indicated (Look at the cursor!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-azUnJGx-Ok

A click in TW1 doesn't mean a single hit, but a combo of two or - later on - several hits. Don't interrupt the combos - by Lclicking at the wrong time.

Geralt is a talent for motion. If you want to avoid damage then Geralt should dodge. You can manage that by double clicking the movement keys W ,A ,S or D. By double klicking "W" he jumps over the heads of his enemies, and after pressing "F" afterwards, he will turn around immediately:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC-lOJ8LWcQ

Important: Choose the proper style. For small, quick monsters and humans with bad armor "Fast Style". If you choose the wrong style this will happen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xSl7G2xtIo

So you have to change the style:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hckP95OqwJY

For details read Geralt's journal (Ingame: Press "J" -> Tutorial).

So take your time. Later on it will look like that:

https://youtu.be/_naT3fQB0KU

Not so bad for a game of the decade before last, I think.

[Tomas9970]

Honestly, I played Witcher 3 as my first game from the series and still had a good time. While I was reading more on various characters as I played, I feel like knowing the geography of the northern kingdoms is a bit more important in the end.

Here's a pretty cool map, even though Nilfgaard had occupied everything up to the Pontar river, which isn't represented.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/witcher/images/1/17/Northernkingdoms_full.jpg

[Anvos]

Sort of, though they pulled a lot of non sequitur between what game 2 was seeming to set up with both characters and plots and what the story of Witcher 3 ended up.

Game 1 other than references they either ignored or forced decisions to be irrelevant.

Game 2 there is a bit of relevance in knowing who some of the people Geralt encounters and has a relationship with are.

[Dork_Stalker_310]

You don't have to, the game was designed with idea of newcomers in mind, so you shouldn't have any trobles getting into it without playing previous games.
However, I would highly recommend giving a whole trilogy a go.
If you can put up with somewhat non-traditional combat and dated graphics, I highly recomend starting with Witcher 1. It's a very unique and fun game, that gave me a lot of fond memories.
Witcher 2 improves on pretty much all aspects from Witcher 1, with exception of gameplay, where it takes a complete nosedive. Pretty good story though.
Otherwise, just start with the third one and see from there - if the game hooks you up, you can play previous parts as prequels.

[jack_of_tears]

When you play 'Witcher 1' - which you absolutely should - be sure to play it in isometric mode, as the 3rd-person combat is terrible but the isometric combat is quite good. In either event, cutscenes and conversations are still done in 3rd-person, so you don't lose anything while you gain a vastly better battle experience.

[Gimli]

I recommend at least watching a recap on TW1 then playing through TW2 before TW3.

The first game is good but I must warn you its pretty dated lmao. The combat system takes some getting used to and one of the chapters is REALLY long.

[Melkolf]

I played TW1 so long ago the only lasting thing I remember was how effed up the combat was. And yeah, I vaguely recall one map - a swamp? - in isometric so I must've decided to play it in that form.

Bought the boxed set of TW2 Premium Edition on a whim a day or two after launch, put it aside to play later. It's still collecting dust over its cellophane-sealed box on my gaming shelf. It's heading off to ebay or a local collector sometime in the future.

I'm currently buying TW3 in full on a massive bargain bin price; I shall be playing it asap without revisiting TW1 or installing TW2.

And from what I've heard about it I'm looking forward to some excellent old world gaming.

Just need to finish my current nostalgia run through Oblivion first.

Oh dear, does that mean TW3 will be now collecting cyber-dust on its Steam library shelf for years to come?

[jack_of_tears]

Originally posted by Melkolf:

Oh dear, does that mean TW3 will be now collecting cyber-dust on its Steam library shelf for years to come?

Your loss from start to finish, I wouldn't be bragging about failing to play one of the best trilogies in gaming but you do you.

[Melkolf]

Originally posted by jack_of_tears:

Originally posted by Melkolf:

Oh dear, does that mean TW3 will be now collecting cyber-dust on its Steam library shelf for years to come?

Your loss from start to finish, I wouldn't be bragging about failing to play one of the best trilogies in gaming but you do you.

I'm not bragging about not playing it, far from it if you could actually comprehend what was written.

To make it clear for you, it's my experience of TW1 which placed playing the sequels at a lower priority than maybe they should've been.

Thus in my experience, I'd not recommend playing the series in sequence. But that's simply from a gaming rather than story line perspective. As others have said, it may be best to play TW3 first then the others as prequels. That's exactly what I am in the position of doing for the most part, at no loss to myself, but to my advantage.

[Blade]

Not really. It's like a Mass Effect kind of where each decision you make affects the next game and so on. Likewise if someone dies in a previous game, they won't be alive in the next game if you carry over your save from the previous game. You can play the Witcher 3 without playing any of the other ones. It's kind of like the 2018 God of War remake in a way where it'll get you into the series and probably end up going back and playing previous titles. At the beginning of the game it will ask you questions you don't understand but it's basically letting you decide the outcomes of the previous games and how they'll affect this one without playing them. I still haven't played the previous titles, I've just been coming back to this one over and over for 7 years and putting almost 500 hours in each time. lol I still remember seeing it in my Game Informer magazine and having no idea what it was, I went into to blind and it was the most immersed and involved I've ever been in a game.

The previous titles aren't quite the same and you may not like them. Witcher 3 is a unique game, the likes of which we've never seen and probably never will again that developers poured blood sweat and tears into over three and a half years. You can feel the love they put into it. Each sidequest though is like a short story of it's own with twists and turns of their own that will keep you interested. So even once the main story is complete, you won't lose interest. It does have it's flaws but those can easily be fixed with mods like fearless roach, which makes it so you have perfect control of your horse, don't get stuck on things, or fight the controls. As well as immersive motion which allows you to toggle walk, run, and jog by holding or double tapping the A button. As for the combat that people tend to say breaks the game for them, there are several mods that revamp the combat system. There is even a complex mod that adds a follower system to the game to breathe life back into the game once you complete the main story. You can have any NPC as a companion and several of them at once. It is very lore friendly and makes it a bit less lonely. There are so many ways to fix the minor flaws in this game that there's just no reason to miss it. Don't hesitate, just play it.

[reachdabeach]

I got 2 and 3 on sale and started with 3 just because I had heard it was better and figured I might want to try 2 if I really like 3. I have watched the series, but not read books. I made it a little ways into 3 and for various reasons decided to at least give 2 a try first. So now I am playing 2, not far in and I started wondering if I should still drop back one more to the first one. i got it, but then found it is mouse and keyboard only and I much prefer gamepad. So I will play 2 and 3 and then maybe 1 at some point; I figure what will drive me to it is finishing the other 2 and wanting some more. getting the story out of order doesn't bug me that much. If I do 2, then 3, 1 will just seem like a prequel. It's not like there are cliff hangers between them; just some stuff I won't know all the backstory to and later have the "now I get what that bit was about" moment.

[Tevildo]

Just sharing my experience, I started TW1 and I wasn't a huge fan at first. So I quit TW1 after ~15 hours, skipped to TW3, loved it, went back and finished TW1, loved that too, then played TW2, and it was also great. Honestly, you could start with either 1 or 3, but I wouldn't recommend starting 2. Every game has its own isolated plot line, but they do all build up to and foreshadow the 3rd game. If you start with 3, then you will obviously miss out on some references to the earlier games, but the same can be said about the books. The "best" way to play them would be to read all of the books, then play the games in order. I will also say, if you have read the books, then you should NOT skip to TW3. If you have not read the books, then it's more okay to start with TW3 because I actually think TW3 does a better job at introducing you to the many characters. TW1 kinda starts "in media res" and it can be very confusing if you're not already familiar with the backstory/characters.

That was a little ramble-y and vague because I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but hopefully it helps.

[reachdabeach]

Originally posted by Tevildo:

Just sharing my experience, I started TW1 and I wasn't a huge fan at first. So I quit TW1 after ~15 hours, skipped to TW3, loved it, went back and finished TW1, loved that too, then played TW2, and it was also great. Honestly, you could start with either 1 or 3, but I wouldn't recommend starting 2. Every game has its own isolated plot line, but they do all build up to and foreshadow the 3rd game. If you start with 3, then you will obviously miss out on some references to the earlier games, but the same can be said about the books. The "best" way to play them would be to read all of the books, then play the games in order. I will also say, if you have read the books, then you should NOT skip to TW3. If you have not read the books, then it's more okay to start with TW3 because I actually think TW3 does a better job at introducing you to the many characters. TW1 kinda starts "in media res" and it can be very confusing if you're not already familiar with the backstory/characters.

That was a little ramble-y and vague because I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but hopefully it helps.

With your last bit, I am not sure you can answer this without spoilers, but why not start with 2? My comment is above yours. A little more about why I started 3 then dropped back...
My computer is fine for 1 and 2 spec wise, but marginal for 3. So I played a bit of 3 first planning to play under 2 hours to decide whether to return it within Steam's constraints (under 2 hours of play time in under 2 weeks). I enjoyed it quite a bit and actually got about 8 hours into it, but I am not a great player so it isn't as far as you might think.
I have not read the books, I have watched the first two seasons of the series. With Ciri being older and apart, I knew it was later than the series and there were references to how things were and had been with Yennifer and Triss that also seemed like I was going to be jumping ahead.
I also felt like I would probably do 2 next if I did 3 first just because I am only going to play the dated KB+M W1 when I have to to get more content. So I started W2 still unsure; if it was too much of a drop off in gaming experience I would go back to 3. Over 24 hours in (kind of; I am bad about letting Geralt stand around in safe spots instead of pausing), I feel like it really isn't, apart from some minor mechanics. I get how some of the mechanics bother better players more.

A further complication to this question is which W2 path do you play (Iorveth versus Roche), or if you will do both, which first?

[Tevildo]

With your last bit, I am not sure you can answer this without spoilers, but why not start with 2? My comment is above yours. A little more about why I started 3 then dropped back...
My computer is fine for 1 and 2 spec wise, but marginal for 3. So I played a bit of 3 first planning to play under 2 hours to decide whether to return it within Steam's constraints (under 2 hours of play time in under 2 weeks). I enjoyed it quite a bit and actually got about 8 hours into it, but I am not a great player so it isn't as far as you might think.
I have not read the books, I have watched the first two seasons of the series. With Ciri being older and apart, I knew it was later than the series and there were references to how things were and had been with Yennifer and Triss that also seemed like I was going to be jumping ahead.
I also felt like I would probably do 2 next if I did 3 first just because I am only going to play the dated KB+M W1 when I have to to get more content. So I started W2 still unsure; if it was too much of a drop off in gaming experience I would go back to 3. Over 24 hours in (kind of; I am bad about letting Geralt stand around in safe spots instead of pausing), I feel like it really isn't, apart from some minor mechanics. I get how some of the mechanics bother better players more.

A further complication to this question is which W2 path do you play (Iorveth versus Roche), or if you will do both, which first? [/quote]

Well, (SPOILERS AHEAD) TW1 sets up a lot of the plot-lines of TW2 such as the Triss romance, Geralt being Foltest's bodyguard, the amnesia subplot, etc. It's totally possible to start with 2, I just wouldn't recommend it over starting with 1 or 3. And the path you chose in TW1 might help inform which path you choose in TW2 if you want to play a consistent Geralt through all 3 games. I have also watched the show, and I'm currently reading the books (on Time of Contempt, book 4 out of 8, so I'm caught up with the main plot of the show. So far I think the books are MUCH better than the show, even though I watched the show and played the games first). Also, the games are all set several years after the end of the books/show; they're sort of an "unofficial" epilogue. Also, slightly controversial take, but I personally prefer TW1 over TW2. It's rough around the edges, but it is much more unique in atmosphere and gameplay, whereas TW2 feels a lot more generic high fantasy with gameplay that's basically TW3 but worse. As for your last question, I chose Iorveth in TW2 because I sided with the Squirrels in TW1. I plan on replaying all of the games once I finish the books to do a "book accurate" Geralt run, and after that I think I'll do an "anti-nonhuman" playthrough.

[reachdabeach]

Originally posted by Tevildo:

A further complication to this question is which W2 path do you play (Iorveth versus Roche), or if you will do both, which first?

Also, slightly controversial take, but I personally prefer TW1 over TW2. It's rough around the edges, but it is much more unique in atmosphere and gameplay, whereas TW2 feels a lot more generic high fantasy with gameplay that's basically TW3 but worse. As for your last question, I chose Iorveth in TW2 because I sided with the Squirrels in TW1. I plan on replaying all of the games once I finish the books to do a "book accurate" Geralt run, and after that I think I'll do an "anti-nonhuman" playthrough. [/quote]

I did not read your spoilers. Interesting take of 1 over 2. Maybe I should try it so I can get part way int all 3... ;->

I have started both chapter 2s. I started with Iorveth and from peeking at a Witcher wiki to see the number and titles of quests , I decided to look at Roche. All it has done is confirm that my gut was right. In Iorveth, it seems all about camraderie and they are fighting to defend their homeland. Dandelion/Jasker is even taken with it and excited about getting involved. When you go in the mine, the dwarves don't just give you info, they all want to come with you. Of course Zoltan is ecstatic to be there.
The first stop with Roche is a snake pit of political intrigue. Dandelion and Zoltan are the only people you can trust and they don't like being there. Lots of hate and distrust for non humans. So far, quests seem to be solo. Might finish a couple of interesting side quests, but I am bailing and going back to Iorveth for my first play through.

I am only half joking about maybe trying some of W1. I am not so far that I know too much, or at least I think not. OTOH, I am not all that skilled in combat and I have kind of hit stride in W2. I will at least do a few minutes of W1.

EDIT - Ooh - W1 has bonus content - a few stand alone stories set in the Witcherverse. Going to try one of those.