Poll: Question: The Witcher 3 - what do I need to have read and played?

[Doug]

Simple question, I'm planning to get the Witcher 3 at some point, and Steam has a sale on at the moment.

At present, I happen to have the Witcher and the Witcher 2 due to sales, but haven't actually played much of them - having heard that 3 is both a leap above them and an awesome game RPG, I thought it'd be a great game for me as I like RPGs (Fallout (all), Dragon Age (2 was abit ropey and Inquistion was good if abit padded out), Mass Effect, etc),

Basically, to get a good experience from the story, is it a good idea to hold off and play the previous Witcher games, and/or read the books before playing 3, or am I going to be fine leaping straight into 3?

If the advise is to play the others first, I might hold off buying until the next Steam sale incase of there being a better deal.

The sale ends on 4th January, so I'd appreciate your collective opinions

Edit: added a 'nothing' option.

Edit 2: tried to add a nothing option but it seems that you can't edit poll options

 

[Zhukov]

None of the above.

You can it play on its own just fine.

I played it having given up on the first game after just a few hours and having completed the second game.

A few subplots in Witcher 3 concern characters and events from Witcher 2. Nothing all that important.

A lot of stuff from the books comes up, but I the game does a good job of establishing context and I understood everything just fine without ever having touched any of the books.

 

[Bellvedere]

I don't think that you'd really need to have played or read anything. Each game in the series essentially has it's own story. That is, Geralt has different goals and motivations in each which at best might be considered very loosely connected.

You won't recognise the returning characters or the political climate of the regions you visit but it catches you up. I wouldn't be that worried about it. At worst you'll miss out on the "I know that guy/gal!" moments and have to wait a a second for the game to tell you that you do indeed know that guy/gal. There's also plenty of major characters introduced to the game series in 3, that you'd be unfamiliar with unless you read the books - it's presumed that most people haven't (they're not even all officially translated into English). Not to mention that several characters can be pretty inconsistent between games anyway, even more between the games and the novels.

Decisions carry over between games but they barely have any impact on the story. Most often a journal note that explains why that decision changed nothing, sometimes a NPC will say something about it to you.

That being said, if you do want to play the previous games and you even own them already, might as well start at the beginning? If you don't like one/both of them skip and go the next game. Each sequel is a significantly improved experience.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The amount I was familiar with concerning this series could fit on a coaster, and I had little to no trouble following the story or character motivations in The Witcher 3. It all stands pretty well on it's own.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Nothing, which is part of the niceness of Witcher 3. It does an excellent job of telling you whats going on and what happened in the past.

Like others, I only played a bit of the first two Witchers. Never got too far into them, but I had no problems keeping up with W3.

 

[CritialGaming]

Not a damn thing.

You could play the Witcher 2, to gain some background on the world and characters a bit. But honestly you dont need to read up on shit. In fact you can gain a lot from the in-game wiki on characters that appears as you meet them. The Witcher 3 GIVES you all the information you could ever need to fully enjoy the story.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Basically, to get a good experience from the story, is it a good idea to hold off and play the previous Witcher games, and/or read the books before playing 3, or am I going to be fine leaping straight into 3?

Witcher 3 stands fine on its own, but the experience WILL be enriched by playing the previous titles/reading the books. The more you play/read, the more call backs, cameos and references you will understand and enjoy. You'll need to decide for yourself if this enrichment is worth the effort/time investment.

I haven't read the books, but my (relatively undiscerning) girlfriend has, and enjoyed them. I have played the first game, and dropped it halfway through. It's VERY rough around the edges. I also played the second game, and thought it was excellent.

If you're a very patient person and want to basically "live like a Witcher" for a month, you could watch a YouTube summary of the plot from the first game, play the second game, and then play the third game. Keeping in mind you'd be in for about 150 hours of Witching.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Nothing. The game is competent and cohesive on it's own, but will be better with some prior knowledge of things.

Unless you're me. Then you get a absolutely bad experience.

Let's hope you're not me.

 

[The Madman]

It helps if you know more about the setting but it's not necessary. I know a couple people who didn't like the previous games yet still loved Witcher 3 after I'd finally convinced them to give it a try.

If however you are looking for some light reading that will help you with the setting and characters, the book The Last Wish is a collection of short Witcher stories that does a good job of establishing the world without being too intense of a read.

 

[Doug]

Thanks all. Based on what you've all said, I'll get witcher 3:_not sure if I'll play 2 first after watching witcher 1 plot summary but nice to know I'll be alright whatever.

Cheers all

 

[Mister K]

I've never played it, but from what I know is that it does a good job of being its own game and even if it refferences something from other Witcher games or from the books there is a handful in-game glossary.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Simple question, I'm planning to get the Witcher 3 at some point, and Steam has a sale on at the moment.

At present, I happen to have the Witcher and the Witcher 2 due to sales, but haven't actually played much of them - having heard that 3 is both a leap above them and an awesome game RPG, I thought it'd be a great game for me as I like RPGs (Fallout (all), Dragon Age (2 was abit ropey and Inquistion was good if abit padded out), Mass Effect, etc),

Basically, to get a good experience from the story, is it a good idea to hold off and play the previous Witcher games, and/or read the books before playing 3, or am I going to be fine leaping straight into 3?

If the advise is to play the others first, I might hold off buying until the next Steam sale incase of there being a better deal.

The sale ends on 4th January, so I'd appreciate your collective opinions

Edit: added a 'nothing' option.

Edit 2: tried to add a nothing option but it seems that you can't edit poll options

Nothing, and if there any individual questions you can just Wiki it.

The only reason I'd say "Witcher 2" is because you can connect Witcher 3 with your completed Witcher 2 game, and the decisions you made will carry over (similar to Mass Effect). That's great, but not necessary for the actual game itself.

 

[distortedreality]

I think that you'd be fine with no reference, it stands alone well, but would recommend reading a plot synopsis of the first two games to get you acquainted with the political side of the story.