The Witcher worth it for gameplay?

[MysticSlayer]

Overall, The Witcher games aren't about the gameplay. They are about the story, characters, and world. The first game even basically built its entire combat system around encouraging an understanding of Witcher fighting styles and how they used them to deal with specific monsters. And while the second (and likely third) are more traditional in their gameplay, they still are (or likely will be) very much about experiencing the world over the combat itself.

Also, while the games are less afraid of mature content than most, that isn't all there is to them either. Yeah, the first game had that card-collecting mini-game (the stupidity of which the developers seemed fully aware of), and the second game also had plenty of moments where it took too much pleasure in that content. However, people definitely spend too much time focusing it. There is a lot of stuff going on in The Witcher games, and the rather juvenile approach to mature content is just a very, very small part of what is there.

 

[asdfen]

as previously mentioned 3rd witcher is not out yet so no one can answer your question

 

[infohippie]

Depends on how you like your games.

The first is an easy system that ends up being so overpowered that about halfway through the game you become almost unbeatable. The story is interesting but a little repetitive.

The second is the polished one with nice standard combat which is really easy but the enemies soon pile up damage if you don't fight defensively. The potion system is pretty much irrelevant and you never actually need to use potions unless you aren't very good at games and need a bonus edge. The story is interesting and has a significant choice on how you end up playing the second half of the game.

The third i've only seen the advert for and since there isn't any combat in it i think the game is probably going to be a step back (if they were proud of what they had created they would show you it, not deliberately hide it). My advice is wait for it to come out and then see how people react before you make your decision...

Pretty much this. The Witcher games seem to really divide people, they either hate them or adore them, with little in between. I am firmly in the latter camp. I think the characters are great, much better than the relatively bland Bioware ones, and the setting is interesting. The combat in the first game is not amazing, but that is not really its strength anyway. Combat in the second game is MUCH better, but the real strength of the series is atmosphere. It is refreshing to have a setting firmly inspired by eastern Europe and Slavic mythology.
I think a lot of the hate it gets is from fans of High Fantasy who don't really get Low Fantasy (or do get it but just don't like it). They write it off as nothing but boobs and swearing without really seeing the depth that is there. TBH, I'd pick the Witcher games over Dragon Age any day.
I like my fantasy with a lot of grey and subtlety rather than the pretty stark black and white of High Fantasy. If TW3 keeps the great story and character focus of the second game in particular, and successfully includes the massive open world that CDPR are aiming for, it will be MUCH better than Dragon Age and Skyrim combined.

 

[Randomvirus]

I actually liked the combat in Witcher 1. I thought it was neat to have three different fighting styles, fast, slow, and group.

Although if you put points into levelling the group style it was all you needed.

I thought the crafting was nice and complicated-ish. And it looks like W3 is going back to that, so that has me happy.

I don't really get the hate on the W2 combat though. It's kinda standard hack and slash action rpg game play. Just you might die really fast if you're unprepared, which a Witcher should always be prepared!