re: What would I be looking at if I were to buy Witcher 1 and 2 from Steam?

quote:

---

I'm one of the folks who quit Witcher 2 during the tutorial.

---

The tutorial for Witcher 2 is absurd, it's harder than any part of the game outside of the final fight of the game (which is optional anyway).

I'd suggest anyone playing Witcher 2 skip the tutorial.

quote:

---

2 is an absolute must before playing 3, though. It's one of those where choices from the prior game have actual consequences in the next release.

---

WTF i was told it doesnt matter to play 2 before 3.... im about 10% through 3 now.

quote:

---

WTF i was told it doesnt matter to play 2 before 3.... im about 10% through 3 now.

---

It's not going to be completely ruined or anything. 3 lets you make the bigger choices from 2 without a previous save file if push comes to shove, but I do think the experience of 3 is diminished without a prior understanding of the political climate and previous actions of a few characters. You can still enjoy the game as a standalone, but there's definitely more catching up to do and the weight of certain situations will vary based on previous knowledge.

quote:

---

2 isn't a must. I never played any of them. 3 does more than enough explaining the situation to bring you up to speed.

---

Not knocking you, but I'm not sure if someone who *hasn't* played the other games would be in a position to make that call. Well, I suppose "a must" would be strong, so you're likely right on that, but I imagine you would potentially lose quite a bit. In theory, playing the first two Mass Effect games before jumping to the third isn't "a must", but not doing so is an awful idea.

quote:

---

I was never lost. Never had a single problem understanding the story so NO, it isn't a must. It isn't remotely needed in order to follow the story.

---

Just because you had a good experience with the game as a standalone doesn't mean you're in a position to say whether or not the prior games are skippable. It's extremely irresponsible to go about recommending that kind of experience with the series when you haven't even played the past games to know what it is you're talking about skipping.

I would never recommend someone skipping 2 before playing 3. Not only because it takes away from your connection and understanding of events in 3, but because I would never want to deprive someone of the experience of playing 2. It's easily one of the best games in the 360's generation. Yes, the tutorial sequence is punishing. It's still a fantastic game and a great story that directly influences events in 3. I would highly recommend any person looking to dive into the series for the first time start at 2 at the least. 1 is decent but it's definitely skippable in order to enjoy the over-arching plot in the games that follow. I can say that having actually experienced all 3 rather than making assumptions about the majority of the series.

quote:

---

it is 100% fine to skip 1 and 2

---

Again, we're not talking about "fine". We're recommending based on giving the best experience with the series possible, we're also doing it from a place of experience, not hearsay and assumptions. There's a difference.

Just because the main of many plots in 3 is comprehensive without knowledge of 2 doesn't mean there isn't a ton you aren't missing out on/picking up throughout the game including resolutions of plot lines that start in 2. This is something you wouldn't be privy to since, again, you didn't bother with the rest of the series.

Which brings us back to our main point of it being rather silly to give input on what you haven't experienced.

quote:

---

Your logic is totally flawed. You aren't in the position because you did play them all. Someone who didn't play the games would be able to tell someone if the backstory was needed to enjoy the 3rd game.

I was never lost. Never had a single problem understanding the story so NO, it isn't a must. It isn't remotely needed in order to follow the story.

And I am knocking you for your flawed incorrect premise. I am in the position to say if the backstory was necessary to enjoy and understand the game. It wasn't necessary. I enjoyed the hell out of my completionist no question marks left play through.

---

Had you read the first page, you would have known that I've never played any of the Witcher games. I was joining in asking people whether they thought the first two should be played. My response to you wasn't predicated on having played the games; it was predicated on having gamed for the better part of three decades and believing that "not being utterly lost" is necessary for enjoying a game, but not sufficient.

Again, I'll use Mass Effect as an example. You can absolutely skip to the third game without having played the first two. Hell, there's is even a little storybook minigame you can go through that fills you in on major narrative points and lets you make those decisions you would have made in previous games so that you can influence your current playthrough.

But you should absolutely, under no circumstances, play Mass Effect 3 without having played the first two.

On the other hand, while I think Half-Life 1 is absolutely worth playing, it's not necessary to fully enjoy Half-Life 2. Because there is no real character development, relationship building, etc, you can get what you need after ten minutes reading a Wiki.

But the only way one can know which is which is to have played them. Play ME3 alone and you might run into a character from previous games in an interaction that is meant to have a massive emotional impact, and you'd have no damned idea, because this is the first time meeting them. You might still fully understand the plot, but you're missing the very things that make the game great, and you don't even realize.

Bought the trilogy. It was $15 for all 3. The fiancé is interested in watching me play them since she liked the show. Gonna have to get a steam link from somewhere.

Bought 2 enhanced and 3 ultimate edition for 17