I didn’t much like W1 and W2. Especially W2 feels like it’s on rails. The story is pretty good though.
Comment on The Witcher III is currently on sale for 3€ until 25th May
grue@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
I’m so patient I haven’t played The Witcher 1 or 2 either. Should I get W3 Complete + W1 + W2 for 9.99 + 1.49 + 2.99 = 14.47, or get the trilogy bundle with only the W3 base game for 1.49 + 2.99 + 3.99) * 0.9 = 7.62 and wait for the W3 expansions to be more than 70% at some future date? (In other words, are W1 and W2 likely to keep me busy for a long time, and does a playthrough of W3 need the expansions installed at the start or is it more of a ‘complete the base game and then to the expansion content afterward’ sort of thing?)
Also, are “The Witcher Adventure Game” and “Thronebreaker: The Witcher Tales” worthwhile/important?
RedSnt@feddit.dk 16 hours ago
Phineaz@feddit.org 17 hours ago
I only played W2 and W3. W2 was not necessary to play the third one, but it’s certainly not a bad game (I personally didn’t like it as much due to the fairly linear story telling). W1 I am told is not that great. Both are much shorter than the complete edition of Witcher 3 I’d argue. The DLC should be fine if added afterwards, I can wholeheartedly recommend both. Blood & Wine especially has received wide praise back then as “being a whole game in the shape of a DLC” .
Thronebreaker is a tales-game that I haven’t had the time for yet. I was told it’s solid.
The Witcher Adventure Game is essentially a board game and is absolutely not necessary for any of the other games. If you like board games and have people to play it with, it’s actually quite good. It has a bit of a learning curve and I very much recommend reading or watching whatever tutorial you can grab a hold of, because it is not all that intuitive.