I'm leaving the thread title generic in case anyone has faced a similar dilemma, but.... I bought The Witcher 1 & 2 in the Steam Autumn sale. The first thing I did was play the Witcher 2's combat mini-game (just to see if my gfx card could handle the game). It could, so I booted up The Witcher 1. Not impressed. I've only played through the opening castle assault so far, but I didn't enjoy it at all (Timed mouse-clicks, really?). Unless the game opens up somehow, particularly the combat, I have a feeling it's going to be a 40-hour chore... So my questions are - Is it worth playing before The Witcher 2? Does it add significantly more depth to the story of the second game, or does number two's story stand on it's own?
Ive played a bit of witcher 2 (didn't really like it though) and I couldn't really see a reason to play the first one.
Stick with the Witcher 1. When I first tried it I remember being annoyed by it but if you stick with it, afterall later on you'll be using alot of signs as well, it's a great game. Witcher 2 can stand alone, you can import Witcher 1 data but in all honesty it only changes a bit of dialogue as far as I remember. The combat style is a bit different as well. Seriously though, stick with W1 and work through that annoyance. It's well worth it, the initial fight scene is merely designed to get you into the idea of the combat style, I remember it being quite different later on and not annoying as the plot and the frantic combat didn't allow time for it.
I've played both of them and sincerely, they are that kind of game which you have to spend too many hours playing for achieve a "decent level of fun"... Witcher's saga is good, but in my opinion they don't deserve that bunch of hours in front of the computer...
That's exactly how it was for me. Some people seem to love it but the combat just ruined the whole thing for me. I hated it. I really tried too, got about two thirds of the way through but just couldn't be bothered to finish it. The sequel was slightly better but I didn't like that either.
Each to their own I guess but I liked getting hours of gameplay out of an RPG rather than just 2 or 3 hours which seems to be quite common with many games now.
Same here, though I didn't get as far. I'm all for a good RPG that takes some time put in but right from the get go it just wasn't enjoyable. Only played for about 5 hours because others had said it was so good. On the bright side I managed to snag three sexy-time cards in that time!
Thanks for the feedback guys. Looks like I'll be skipping 1 and going straight to 2. If it doesn't add that much to the story of the second game, I don't think I would have the patience to sit though an rpg that just involves clicking on stuff with no real tactical decisions (I heard the magic was over-powered in the first game)
Both are awesome games, The Witcher in particular was one of my gaming highlights in life. Truly an awesome experience. The game doesn't start out so well, but it just gets better and better and better and better, until you blown away by the story. The graphics are still ok, not great but ok. After this the Witcher 2 is a better game imo. You really should stick with the first one, and all you other guys should try and give it a whirl. It takes about 2-4 hours for the game to become "hmmm, this might be ok" and then another 2-4 hours when you go "this is pretty good" and another 2-4 hours until you just start to realise that your playing a truly great rpg. I cannot emphasise on the story enough, the first Witcher is so rich that I dare say nothing else comes close in adult video game story telling. I've played through the original about 3 times now, and probably will do one more before I play 2 again, so I can import the choices I made.
