As a person wich couldn't get past act 2 in the first game of the series, would the witcher 2 and 3 be any better?

As a person wich couldn't get past act 2 in the first game of the series, would the witcher 2 and 3 be any better?
I don't understand why the game is so praised but i want to.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fkA3KKSHx9o
youtube.com/watch?v=ZMWW31FVCy0
youtube.com/watch?v=76DgDi-O314
youtube.com/watch?v=g8KOXEJl5w0
youtube.com/watch?v=e4-H3VTmhLQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Witcher 3 is the best game I've ever played. Just watch a story recap video and skip to the third one (The game was made specifically so that people new to the series can jump right in). It's bretty gud.

Never played witcher 1 because of how shitty it looks and how much praised it got from shitty PCuck neckbeard faggots. Nothing these people like are good. NOTHING.

Witcher 2 is okay in my book. The combat is not that great but the rest is FUN.

2 massively improves combat but it's still shit
3 is a very slight improvement over 2 and is still pretty bad

They all have good writing and is the main draw, but if you can't stand the combat, don't play any of them.

The first game is the only good one. 2 and 3 are casualized console trash.

Witcher 3 is good if you take it in small doses. Trying to play through the entire thing in two or three sitting is a bad idea. Going in fresh into the world in tiny doses makes you appreciate the game a lot more. Playing it through at once makes you numb to all the subtleties and intricacies of the art.

memes aside, the witcher 3 is incredible, but turn off your map and horse stamina bar. Turn off all the unneeded HUd elements as much as possible and get immersed.

I can stand the combat, as long as the rpg is good.
Tw1 just bored me out of uninterest right when chapter 3 started.

Even the most ADHD faggots who actually finished the original game agree that the first couple chapters are its weakest. I personally had no issues with them, as the atmosphere, lore and world in general sucked me in, and the beginning is literally all about introduction and tutorials.

TW1 especially is sort of a slow-burn, high reward sort of game. The more time you invest into it, the more satisfying it became. I replayed the game 3 times in a row, loving each new run more than last, always finding something brand new. The last couple acts are more than good enough reason to play through Witcher:EE.

I was SUPER hyped for TW2 afterwards, but holy fucking shit is it one of THE most overhyped piece of shit games ever created! They literally consolized and linearized it to hell, and nothing is like in the original anymore. QTEs and DaS like (but far clunkier) combat, with horrible and slow consolitis UI. Heck, it's pretty much not even the same GENRE as TW1 !

TW3 was a little step back to the right direction, but still nowhere near as brilliant as the original game.

>Never played witcher 1 because of how shitty it looks
Modern console graphix whore generation, ladies and gents.

No. I like games from all generations, but the witcher is one of the ugliest games I have ever seen.

It's not about having modern graphics, the total aesthetic even for the technology of the day is just hideous at times

TW1 is better than TW2. It doesn't rush you along and the environments and atmosphere was just much better. You want to explore every thing. In TW2, it seems like CDPR tried to make it a cinematic experience, the gameplay wasn't as smooth. I don't know about anyone else but I also preferred the combat in TW1 more. It felt very fluid and the different stances were nice to use.
It is a common yet kinda odd phenomenon to see first timers get bored at the first couple acts. I still recommend you to push forward.

>but the witcher is one of the ugliest games I have ever seen.
You got something in your eyes?
The art directing, and even the old tech itself, are both very nice.

If you're gonna skip 1 you might as well skip 2 as well.

2 is easily the weakest entry.

I agree up to the witcher 3.
The witcher 3 I found to be far more immersive than the first game, with improvements all across the board.
TW3 > TW1 > TW2

When does the story get good

I'm in chapter 3 of the first game, it's alright but not as good as people make it out to be, also not really worth the meh gameplay

>these are the people who browse neo-Sup Forums now

First game is garbage outside of story and lorefaggotry don't let slav drones tell you otherwise. Other games are good.

>It's a Witcher 1 is boring so can I skip it episode.

You fucking faggots need to work on your attention span.

I have yet to meet a single person that finished Witcher 1 who walked away from it thinking it was shit.

I still can't love TW3 as much as I do 1, thanks to the lack of proper PC UI + mouse controls, and the sad removal of sword stances. I'm also not a fan of this Batman-style "super vision" fad that's been plaguing games the past few years.

I liked the gameplay, world, lore, characters and all the side content of TW1 much more than any of the sequels'.

This.

If you don't like it by then, just skip it.

>Witcher 3 is the best video game I've ever played.
Wow, you have some really fucking shit taste.
>just watch a story recap video and skip to the third one
I want to hurt you very badly
Look at these fucking faggots, these are the children we share a board with now who can't sit down for a couple of hours and get sucked into a world that doesn't reward them at every turn.

>The only people who finished this 30+ hour long game are people who liked it
No shit

The only people crying about combat in Witcher 3 can't handle enemies that block their attacks. So they cry and whine they can't just spam a single button and win.

Sup Forums is full of little underage faggots. it sucks ass because they leak over to boards where they really don't belong

Nigger, the game is clumsy.

This is coming from someone who fucking loved Mass Effect 1, so that says a lot.

>How dare you enjoy something?
>How dare you not have obscure and niche tastes?
Neckbeard detected

there's really nothing clumsy about Witcher 1.
It's very typical, refreshingly oldschool CRPG, which has a combat system quite close to the good ol' hack & slash dungeon crawlers.

TW1 is an amazing game

jumping straight into 2 or 3 without playing it is kinda silly

>TW1
>obscure and niche

oh please

...

Think i am going to buy on gog tw1 and tw2.
Are those 2 on gog "complete" or am i losing out some dlc and shit?

Yes it's better than the others, just pirate it to try and eventually buy it if you like.

>Turn off all the unneeded HUd elements as much as possible and get immersed.

How does it feel like to be literally autist? If you can't ignore something in your field of vision you have issues.

As someone who has TW1 in his top 10 games of all time, yeah, it's pretty niche.
There is merit to his argument if you're not a child. TW2 and 3 are very good games in their own right, much better than most games in the genre but the genre is fundamentally a different one.

TW1 is a CRPG with aRPG-like combat.

TW2 and 3 are straight action-adventure RPG hybrids.

Look user, keep playing it. You might get into it. Just sit down and try more. I gave up at the beginning phases because of how overwhelming it was to start out, but now that I understand the system it's really damn comfy. Keep playing and give it another shot like I did.

>Modern console graphix whore generation, ladies and gents
Like as if you don't give a shit about graphics.

TW1 and 2 both are sold as Enhanced Edition, which is the complete game, by all means.

I'm in the exact same boat, OP. I've got them all from a sale last year and trying to work through them.

I wouldn't say that tW1 is boring so far (I just started Chapter III) but it's definitely overbearing, for me. During the investigation stuff in Chapter II I really started to feel like I had too much on my plate as I tried to work through it all one quest at a time. I think they may have bitten off to much to chew with how the quests all interacted with each other because there was more than a few times I found what I was doing made little sense or had hit a road block completely until I was in the right place at the right time talking to the right person for some codex entry I didn't have on how Elves wipe their asses.

Witcher 1 has fantastic environments, but the character models are fucking hideous. Slavs made some great worlds to play in but it took Witcher 2 to teach them how to design characters.

Thank god Witcher 3 met in the middle between 1 and 2.

Witcher 1 was hard to get in to at first, I played through Witcher 2 and it helped me get in to the first one

>Like as if you don't give a shit about graphics.
I only care about pure art-directing.
I can easily go back to playing 5th gen games with wobbly and pixelated visuals, but more and more modern games just annoy me with their plasticy, vaseline and color-filter coated visuals.
MGS1 vs Twin Snakes is a good example of art-style and directing going backwards with newer tech.

TW2 and up may look a bit smoother, but their gameplay sucks. And in both of the "prettier" sequels, there was lots of annoying visual issues, that just stick out more from the otherwise more polished graphics.

tl;dr: No, I really don't care. And TW1 looks nice.

Loves Witcher 1 but can't get into 2. Why did they try to copy Dark Souls holy shit.

I still can't figure out how the combat works in TW1. Makes absolutely no sense and I have no idea what the fuck I am doing.

Might go back to it after flicking through this thread.

I really enjoyed TW3, had a great storyline and the world was fun to explore. Never played TW2, might do that after 1.

Witcher 2 came before Dark Souls, dummy.

>tfw love all 3 games

>witcher 3 is one of my favourite games of all time
>tried playing witcher 2, never could get far because of how insanely boring the beginning is
>afraid of trying witcher 1

Just bought them both, very very please with all the mount of extra shit, "game goodies".
Very well worth the 2€.

Holy shit, neo Sup Forums is real. Get back to your consolised MGS and Baby souls cancer and stop soiling the fine name of the first Witcher title, you little cancerous twats. You aren't even worthy of mentioning this masterpiece.

They copied Demon's, it's fairly obvious snd the same thing.

The Witcher is a great PC game. The Witcher 2 and 3 are console games. You seem to be of the console variety.

Same here. There's no bad Witcher game made by CDPR. Each of them are at minimum good and enjoyable.

>He fell for the Polack shilling
Witcher 3 is at best Ass Creed tier.

Does it really matter if people play on console or PC? I use both, and they are both fun. Don't see the issue.

I thought W1 was alright. I quit W2 pretty quickly because of the QTEs and the on rails "epic cinematic moment" shit. I never played W3 because I assume it's more of the same.

>This is coming from someone who fucking loved Mass Effect 1, so that says a lot.

What exactly does it say that you loved the best Mass Effect game?

I said i don't get why all 3 games are praised, not only the first one, go get some logic casualfag.

>best mass effect
>barren planet racing simulator

Just kill yourself my man

Witcher games are games that get good after about 20 hours.

Your taste is irredeemable, kill yourself asap.

>loves cover based shooters

You first.

no please fuck off

Mass Effect 2 only had two good sections

>Omega
>Tuchanka

Everything else was garbage.

Mass Effect 3 is complete garbage all throughout.

>This is coming from someone who fucking loved Mass Effect 1, so that says a lot.

It really does.

I've only ever played The Witcher and The Witcher 2, haven't had a chance to play The Witcher 3.
You'd just be doing yourself a disservice for not playing both games.

I've played through TW1 completely along with all the unfinished adventure missions with 80 hours logged. I've played through The Witcher 2 three times (roche first, iorveth second, then roche again) with 168 hours logged.

Honestly I hated The Witcher 2 at first, so I can empathize a little with what other people are saying. In fact I played my first playthrough of TW2 before I played TW1 as well. Both games need to be approached with a certain mindset, you really have to immerse yourself and try to understand the motivation of your character.

It's odd that people are saying the first few acts of TW1 were the weakest, those are actually the ones I enjoy the most. I also remember feeling a bit overwhelmed with sidequests when starting TW1, especially since you can't progress the Salamandra quest without first completing some other unrelated quests. You just have to slow down and take it in stride. Geralt is in no hurry to pursue the Salamandra because he knows they're in Vizima and he can take his time to flush them out, why not earn some coin on the side?

>Bough 2 and 3 because I loved 1
>Somehow I feel disapointed that they changed the combat from that shitty click to kill mechanics.

I don't know why, I mean the followers don't exactly have that advanced combat but I am still amazed that I went "Huh, wheres muh original combat?"

>Why did they try to copy Dark Souls holy shit

If only. They copied bamham.

w1 is slow but it picks up
also geralt starts to get retardely strong once you start getting the golden talents and its pretty fucking fun
loved reading about lore and shit, also witcher games have lots of side quests, love that

Sup Forums hyped The Witcher 1, there was a massive backlash for how bad it was.

Sup Forums hyped The Witcher 2, there was a massive backlash for how bad it was.

Sup Forums hyped The Witcher 3, it was finally (somewhat) polished enough for a mainstream audience.

Those games are only bad if you're not the target audience, who actually enjoys good CRPGs.

>things that never happened

>backlash over how bad it was
only in your head

Also I forgot to mention that I actually rate TW2 to be as good as TW1 now.

Once you get use to the combat, you'd actually find it very tactical and fun. And if you don't understand what's going on in the story (the game doesn't make any effort to spoonfeed the player in that regard) I can understand how the experience can be alienating.

Understanding the political forces at work in the story of TW2 makes or breaks the game quite frankly.

So prior to playing TW2, look at a map of the world and find out what kingdom/affiliations each character represents and you'll find the game much more engaging.

Remember when CPDR put a hidden message along the lines of "we love you PC players we will never betray you" in the TW2 announcement trailer? Where did that go?

>TW1
>not obscure and niche
I don't know anyone that played it IRL. It also didn't sell as good as the last two either. Plenty of people on Sup Forums playing it doesn't make it a popular game. It's obscure in the real world.

Also go fuck yourself with your hipster mentality. I recommended that he just skips to the best installment in the series because he couldn't get into the first one. I guess it must ruse your neckbeard ass that people actually don't have time to autistically play through every title in every series.

Witcher 3 plays just fine with a PC.

It sold 2-3 million copies at least.

It's not obscure, it was popular in Europe

Witcher 2 plays just fine on PC too, doesn't change the fact it's a console game.

86 is terrible

>It was popular in Poland
wew lad

No it isn't, 50 is terrible for a big budget game.

But this wasn't even a big budget game

>games not made for my demographic don't appeal to me

Have to agree. I'm used to lawnmowing quest areas in RPGs, not moving on until I finish everything in that particular area. But if you do that in Witcher 3 you quit around the time you get to Novigrad.

Am i a faggot if i want to read the entire series of books before re-playing The Witcher 1 and 2?
I want to enjoy the games fully but i wonder if i have to go all in or i could stop at some book

Are those as bad as they look?

The short stories are good. The start of the saga is ok-ish. The end of the saga is hot garbage. So yeah, if you read ALL the books, you're a fag.

just read them, they are really good.

also you are missing the eight one

I've read the first two and they're solid and referenced quite a bit in the games, plus it helps since Yennefer is completely absent from the first two games.

Saying you need to read all of them in order to enjoy the games is just silly though.

The first three books are legitimately good literature, it falls off a bit later, but it's still interesting.

Last Wish
Sword of Destiny
Blood of Elves

are kind of considered the core, with Blood of Elves being the first of the novels, which read much more like traditional adventure fantasy, while the first two books are more interesting in my opinion.
I've read all of the books and enjoyed all of them, but the semi-final one Tower of the Swallow really started dragging on.

You can safely skip Season of Storms, it's pointless and boring.

As someone who luckily had the optimal Witcher story experience, the best way to go through the franchise is this:

First Game
The Last Wish
Second Game
Sword of Destiny
Blood of Elves
Time of Contempt
Baptism of Fire
The Tower of the Swallow
Lady of the Lake
First Game
Second Game
Third Game

>I bet Sup Forums will think I'm cool when I post this!

I pity the plebs who can't enjoy every witcher game.

I specially pity the underage neo/v/ cucks who jumped on the witcher bandwagon with 3 and never played 1 and 2, so when characters from 1 and 2 appeared in 3 they were completely lost.

>finding the remnants of the order of the burning rose at the end of W3 just scrapping by making fisstech and raiding villages
>their leader remembers you and how you killed Jacques de Aldersberg in TW1, starting the downfall of the order

None of those moments have any meaning if you're a shit eating skyrim playing children who finished any of the previous games.

I want retarded plebs out of my patrician rpg series.

No, definitely not.

I just want to read for fun and i'm trying to find a hobby that doesn't involve computer usage or someshit.
The eight one is still not translated yet, i can't find info about a 8th book actually.
Are you talking about that one with the imaginary marriage story between Geralt and Yennefer?

That's why i'm asking, after a determined book it went full story about Ciri'n'shit which it doesn't get included until the Third game.

You say that i should play the first games then read everything for the third?
That's fucking extremely time consuming.

>finding the remnants of the order of the burning rose at the end of W3 just scrapping by making fisstech and raiding villages

Never got around to playing W3, but I wonder if this turns around if you actually help the order, I saw Sigfried in W2 and the order was doing fine

>That's fucking extremely time consuming
You call it time consuming, I call it comfy.

I really dislike consumer culture, you're talking as if The Witcher 3 is the objective and all of the books and games exist simply to supplement your experience of TW3, because it's the most hyped and marketed thing.

I instead view every single part of the experience as it's own element, part of a larger whole, I don't wait for the book to end to enjoy the game better, I enjoy the book, then the game and so on.

Your actions in the first two games have very little effect on what happens in TW3

naw, thats the last short story

Storm Season is the one Sapkowski released last year, from the ending i presume it is the last Geralt story he will write as well.

If you want to read good books, there are plenty of better ones. Scifi: Foundation series, Fantasy: Song of Icd and Fire, Elric of Melnibone, Conan. Urban fantasy: Harry Dresden series. Plenty of stuff that's all much better what Sapkowski ever wrote. The Witcher concept is interesting and unique, it was just very rarely realized upon by the writer. Given the settings and the ideas, I'm betting other writers could do a lot better.

Just remove yourself from existence you piece of shit

If you didnt play W1 -> W2 -> W3 in that order and didnt like all of them youre a pleb and not a witcher fan.

Bonus-points for finishing each of them multiple times.

Were the books translated per chance?

>Song of Ice and Fire
As a bookfag who's main jam is genre fiction and short story writer I can tell you that ASOIAF is a shitty series, with horrible writing, badly realized characters and a really bland plot, if you have any sort of literature experience. The dialogue is especially bad.

>I really dislike consumer culture, you're talking as if The Witcher 3 is the objective and all of the books and games exist simply to supplement your experience of TW3, because it's the most hyped and marketed thing.
>I instead view every single part of the experience as it's own element, part of a larger whole, I don't wait for the book to end to enjoy the game better, I enjoy the book, then the game and so on.
Have you ever heard of having fun? You know, not making the act of playing a video game a chore? Also so what if TW3 is hyped? It's fun as fuck.

This is why game is praised
>Sidequests
youtube.com/watch?v=fkA3KKSHx9o
>Details of the world
youtube.com/watch?v=ZMWW31FVCy0
>Brilliant dialogue system explained
youtube.com/watch?v=76DgDi-O314
>beautiful world
youtube.com/watch?v=g8KOXEJl5w0

Here is solid reviev to sum it up

youtube.com/watch?v=e4-H3VTmhLQ

Witcher 3 is for people who really like sitting through cutscenes with poor gameplay.

I actually read the books way before the TV show. ASOIAF first three books are brilliant, especially if you are very tired of the traditional western fantasy field.