If you played Witcher 3 right away, should you go through 1 and 2? (The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt)
I just liked 3 very much, so I think 1 and 2 can pass, will it be interesting? all the same, in 2007 the graphics were not so goodI don’t know how the first part, but already the second in terms of graphics and other things, not really .... While the action takes place in the open air, then more or less, it is worth getting into the shadows and the desire to play disappears.
andryuha-24
2 it is necessary, there is a similar fight, only "dances" a lot before the strike. The plot is quite interesting, and the graphics in some places look better than the third. One thing infuriates you to madness - you can't jump.
I can’t say for sure about the first one, I didn’t master it, and not even because of the graphics, there’s a complete fight there.
First read all the series of the book, then play the 1st and the second part of the game, of course)
If because of the plot, then it's worth it. For example, I first went through the 2nd part and then read the books of Sapkowski, then the first part and the third.
I think it's worth playing for the sake of the plot (and even necessary), the graphics are not so bad. By the way, as I understand it, Blood and Wine will somehow be connected with the first part.
Part 1 has a problem not in graphics (you can easily get used to it), but in mechanics. Combat, inventory, interaction with objects, alchemy are done differently. If the plot is important, then play.
I advise you to go through the second two times (after the first chapter, you can choose to let Iorveta or Roche, this will change somewhere 40% of the plot and additional quests.)
_JustPRO_
Hearts of Stone are also associated with 1 part. There is Shani, the Order of the Burning Rose.
In the first part, there is simply an indescribable atmosphere, I wanted to abandon it because of the gameplay, but the plot dragged on until the final credits.
The second passed 2/5 chapters, very bored, the graphics are not bad, but the plot is sucked from the finger and in general there are very few interesting tasks besides the main quests.
And in general, decide for yourself, otherwise everyone will advise you to your taste.
Well, the first one because of the plot and, oddly enough, because of the fight I liked ... Anyone else. The fight trains the reaction and rhythm as for me.
If you want to know about the universe of the witcher, first read the books. Then start playing the first part. For in the first witcher, the story begins after a series of books. Well, then everything goes on the continuation of the story. When I went through the first part, I did not know that there were a series of books. And in the game, the NPCs told some incomprehensible stories. And after the books, everything becomes much clearer.
AleksandrFedorov
There are only 3 chapters, and the last one is much shorter than the others)
andryuha-24
As mentioned above, if the graphics are important, do not play (although in my opinion the graphics are good there, even for 2016), + there is a very specific control.
And if you are interested in the plot, read the books first, then play with part 1. And get used to the controls, the plot of the game is worth it)
The first one itself did not go through, it seemed boring, but the second one passed several times. Books are generally super, if of course you like to read)) If you like the universe, then go ahead!))
VampireRaziel
Plus about combat. I was upset when in 2 parts they refused it.