Should I play 1 and 2 first or can I just jump into the 3rd?

Should I play 1 and 2 first or can I just jump into the 3rd?

wait for the 4th and play that

Play 1, ditch 2 and read the story on wikipedia, play 3

2 is so short it doesn't really deserve to be bought

2nd was better than the first in many areas

Go straight to the third if you want.

Only in graphics was it better.

Play none because it's a shit series. Unless of course you want boring ass game play paired with mediocre writing.

You clearly don't care about the story so just buy call of duty instead
faggot

here is your (you), for your bait.

>playing video games for the story

Who is truly the faggot here? Hint: it's you.

Stoy-wise there`s no need to play the first 2, but I recommend at least trying 1 and 2 before going to 3. They're all great games, but pretty different from one-another, so if you dislike one of them it doesn't mean you'll dislike the other.

I tried 1 recently, immediatly dropped. It didn't ag well, and the combat system is autistic

They all have shit gameplay. If you can stomach the most important part of a video game being shit then play through all of them.

You can watch a youtube summary while ot downloads, the first two games are good though but not mandatory.

It's 25 hours long, two playtroughs are significantly different, and the price is 5$

idiot

Just play them all

2 is short as fcuk

Not b8 m8, maybe you should take off the fan boy glasses and see its really overrated and all around just nothing special.

1 and 2 don't have Yennefer, so they're not worth playing.

only neo/v/ shitters can't grasp the idea many games aren't about pressing buttons

You can skip them if you want, both have their strengths and weaknesses, the second one is easier to play through since it is more modern.

There are some recurring characters and the whole political climate is the result of the events of the first two games but that's pretty much it. Skipping them should be fine.

If you really want the full experience you should read the books or at least their summaries. The third game is mostly the conclusion of the story told in the books and not the first two games.
That being said I'm not sure how good the english translation for the books is, so I can't tell if they are worth reading in english.

3

play 2 first at least. its really good. and If you decide to play it after 3 you'll likely hate it.

Nah

that is some serious shit taste user

NO U

You not only need to play the other games, but also read the books

Buy the complete edition.

The lore is pants on head retarded and made by some foreign teen that was ripping off Lord of the Rings/Batman.

3rd first then The Witcher:Rise of the white wolf then the witcher adventure game than finally witcher 1. Skip 2. The story makes WAY more sense this way.

Playing the first two won't make the third any less shit, so go for it.

Yea, shit games maybe.

They're all shit so don't bother playing any of them.

Play through the elder scrolls series instead! And if you've already done that, play them again!

Jump to 3

1 and 2 are a slog

Ignore the first play the 2nd choose Roche

Grim Fandango, Planescape Torment, Legacy of Kain series, Myst series, Longest Journey, Bloodlines, I can go on you triple pleb

The first two games mostly introduce some side characters, but besides that the central elements of the plot are mostly standalone.
The third game feels more like a continuation to the books than a continuation of the story of the first two games.

>implying Myst wasn't about pressing buttons

It sure as fuck wasn't a walking simulator.

You can start on 3 if you want, you'll probably want to read the extra character profiles though

you press buttons to get around the world and solve riddles but it's only there because it need to be

Play through 1 and 2 first. Admittedly, you have to have some interest in the plot to carry you through some of the gamplays flaws of all 3 games

read the books