Poll: Witcher 1?

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Hey guys. With the GOG sale about to end, and my Paypal finally warming up to me and letting me put money into it, I'm wanting to buy The Witcher 2.

However I would first like to know if I NEED Witcher 1 first or if Witcher 1 is even worth grabbing anyway.

Also, what are your experiences with the games? I mean they LOOK okay, but I've been fooled before.

EDIT
Thanks for the feedback guys! I've bought The Witcher 1+2 with all their extras and picked Dungeon Keeper 2 up along the way!

Regards, CpT x Killsteal

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Nah, you don't need Witcher 1.

This will take care of any plot needs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPHgWfWFr9k

Witcher 2 is a fantastic game. One of the best RPGs of the last decade.

Witcher 1 is a fussy, aging game with some interesting elements offset by a great many clunky ones. Unlike games like Planescape Torment or BG2, I don't consider the story or thematic elements essential enough that it's worth struggling through rickety game play. Others may disagree.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

No you don't need the Witcher 1 to play the Witcher 2. I jumped into the series at number two and didn't have any issues with understanding the story. Some of the locations and jargon might get you, but you can find things in game which will explain all that stuff, if the characters don't just do it themselves.

If it's on sale for a great price, go ahead and pick it up, but know that #2 is much better and some annoyances you pick up with the first are probably gone in the second. So don't let a bad experience with the first discourage you from playing the second.

 

[TheCommanders]

A while back I saw some stuff that really made be want to play the Witcher 2, but like you I was on the fence about the first game. I ended up just going for it, and playing through the first one, and I'm very glad I did. No, it's not perfect, and yes, the second game improves drastically on quite a number of things, but there were quite a few moments that made me very happy I decided to go through the first one.

 

[In Search of Username]

None of these poll options are how I feel.

The first one is good, but not nearly as great as the second, quite different in terms of gameplay so playing one won't necessarily help with picking up the other, and not at all necessary for understanding the second game's plot. I played the second one first, my advice would be to do that, then play the first if it leaves you thirsting for more.

 

[The Madman]

You can play the second Witcher game without having played the first, that said at five bucks right now the first game might also be worth giving a try. It's very much a love or hate game so there's a chance you might not end up liking it, but at 5 dollars that's not really a big deal if you don't whereas if you do like it those five dollars could end up having been your best purchase in awhile.

Up to you. But no, you don't need to have played 1 to play 2.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I would recommend you play the first one alongside the side stories (especially Side Effects and The Price of Neutrality) if you really want to get into the Witcher universe.

You don't really need to play it per se, but knowing who the characters are and all the references you will hear in Witcher 2 will make a lot of sense if you played the first one.

 

[BrotherRool]

I really didn't like the first one, but my opinion is not in the majority and I doubt you would feel the same way about it. In pure RPG terms the combat isn't too great and the quest chains/layout is nothing special, but none of it is so bad as to be unenjoyable, just a little unexceptional and there's lots of the levelling up dings and other RPGy senses of satisfaction. The combat gets a bit better later on. It depends if you're driven off by the aggressive Geraltness (which apparently gets a bit more balanced in the second game). I haven't heard many people at all say they preferred the first over the second though, so maybe you should just wait till you've played that? It's bound to be on sale again (probably around the time of the Witcher 3 release at the latest)

 

[Brown_Coat117]

No you don't need to, and no I don't recommend it. 2 is a must play though.

 

[Elfgore]

Required...No. Suggested...Yes.

Minor decisions are carried over from the first, but don't change anything but conversations in the game. The better part is certain gear is carried over. I started my Witcher 2 game with both a OP silver sword and normal sword and powerful armor.

For story, it tells why you follow the king you do in the start and a little about the factions involved but you could learn quickly without playing the first.

To contradict almost everyone else, I actually prefer the first game's combat to the second's. The seconds fast pace action doesn't work with me and a keyboard. I have to make use of the combat redo and still play on easy to not die every fight. The first's game is easy to learn and easy to use with a keyboard, but it is very boring after you learn how to fight every enemy type and how to counter them with stances. It's very similar to KOTOR's combat as you can pause and choose stances.

 

[Woodsey]

Others may disagree.

In terms of choice and consequence - down to the order you do things in, in some cases I believe - it's meant to blow pretty much everything else out of the water, particularly with regards to how subtle it is in doing so. Having said that, its first 5 hours are like being in purgatory and I've never made it past them.

As for TW2, played it thrice, one of my favourites. Can't recommend it enough. It works without the first, certainly.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Hey guys. With the GOG sale about to end, and my Paypal finally warming up to me and letting me put money into it, I'm wanting to buy The Witcher 2.

However I would first like to know if I NEED Witcher 1 first or if Witcher 1 is even worth grabbing anyway.

Also, what are your experiences with the games? I mean they LOOK okay, but I've been fooled before.

Get both. They're awesome and cheap.

If you want my experience with both games, check out my Let's Play thread here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.404351-An-Impromptu-Witcher-Lets-Play-now-with-the-Witcher-2?page=1

Also, you may want to pick up the Witcher short story collection and novel (they came first - the games are basically high-end Fanfiction of this novel series).

 

[OpticalJunction]

You can enjoy witcher 2 fine without playing the first, just like you can enjoy assassin's creed 2 without playing ac1 (which was tedious as hell). Witcher 2 is by far the better game.

 

[Abomination]

Witcher 1 focused more on Geralt as a WITCHER whereas Witcher 2, springboarding off the end of Witcher 1, focuses on Geralt being an influence on the politics of the 4 northern kingdoms.

I can't imagine trying to play Witcher 3 without playing Witcher 2 though as the number of endings in Witcher 2 and the differences to the political climate there are staggering.

 

[DarkishFriend]

Witcher 2 > Witcher 1.

As much as I do like the original Witcher, it is clunky, it is aged and it will put off many many people because of that.

Though if you are invested it can still be an enjoyable game that, while not having a good narrative, it has a unique in that like the Witcher 2 choices aren't black and white, good or evil and the plot points involve intrigue and diplomacy, two things I think fantasy games lack sometimes while you're running around killing dragons.

The witcher 1 also sets up the world and the characters.

 

[Caiphus]

I'd almost go backwards. Check TW2 out, and if you really like it then go get the first. The second game is a lot better, and you can pick it up without having played the first.

 

[Bellvedere]

The Witcher 1 is a good game but it hasn't aged too well. I've just started a replay myself, and I'm enjoying the combat less than I remember (which is more the camera than anything else). It's not unplayable by any means and is still a fantastic game in pretty much every other regard.

Being that choices carry through from the first game (even if it's not incredibly significant), I don't think I personally would want to start at two, but I suppose that depends on how much that kind of thing matters to you.

 

[risue]

you don't really need the Witcher 1 to understand the Witcher 2, but I'll say this, you would probably feel more engrossed in the world having played both games.

right now, The Witcher games are my favorite series bar none, But my first experience with TW1... played 10 minutes and put it down feeling like i wasted my money on a game that seemed like it would be cool, but had such weird technical issues and convoluted menus or combat that i couldn't deal with it. A few months later i gave it another go and stuck with it a little longer, long enough to feel comfortable with all the hurdles that turned me away before, and i found a game with a much richer story, game play, characters, decisions and some of the most honestly thought provoking instances that i had ever experienced, and i haven't found anything that has topped it yet. It's not perfect, but it's completely worth it.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

You don't need the first game to get into the second, though I would recommend it regardless. Yes, it's flawed and a little clunky, but for the most part it's a great RPG experience with a great story and some cool characters (thought admittedly, for every cool character is about 10 standard ones. This is something that Witcher 2 greatly improved on).

So, if you can tolerate some annoyances in a game, and don't require a magnificently polished AAA game, I'd certainly recommend it. The combat is kind of old school in a way, it's not as interactive as in Witcher 2. It's a little hard to explain, but it certainly isn't bad.

I really like the game, it's got heart and is rather charming. It holds a certain charm that Witcher 2, with all its improvements, does not have.