Witcher 3

[Valmy]

I bought 1 and 2 for cheap to lead up to 3. I haven been able to get more than a couple hours into one as it is pretty dull.

Yeah I heard the quests were really bad back when Witcher 1 was first released which is part of the reason I never got into the series. But some people really loved it.

[Scipio]

1 and 2 are good, but 1 is pretty opaque for a while. It seems like later quests are better thought-out.

[Martinus]

Personally, I didn't play Witcher 1 and only a bit of Witcher 2, but I finished Witcher 3 twice. So my personal advice would be: I wouldn't bother with the earlier games. Witcher 1 has basically been the first wide release game of CD Projekt and they have really went a long way by the time they released Witcher 3, but I am not sure it is worthwhile to relive this journey with them, if you know what I mean. It's a bit like going back to the original Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings because you like recent Paradox games - by today's standards, these games are now unplayable.

It is definitely not the case of Dragon Age, where you had a mature company which released many games before starting a new franchise.

[Norgy]

What do you expect? Uniform opinions? The Witcher 2 is pretty decent, but with less freedom than Wild Hunt.

Usually nerds like to explain themselves rather than 'do it! Don't do it!'

I could not care less about freedom or open world stuff. Whether the game is on rails or if it is complete anarchy it is all good, provided it is a good game.

Like I said yesterday, the controls are a bit iffy in TW2 compared to in TW3, in my opinion. The boxing minigame was a complete mystery to me at first. And I managed to get stuck in the tutorial, not being able to hit some mage with 10 knives. 

[viper37]

just get this one.

Interesting. Will do. Care to explain why? Are the other two subpar? Are they not closely related to the plot of this game for some reason?

They are really old and they were done with a low budget (#1 especially).  So, that shows after so many years.

Aside that, well, the decisions you take in #1 have a certain impact in #2, but once in #3, not really.  I have tried playing both, but I just couldn't get into it, it just seem like tireless hack&slash in some places.

About the choices mattering along the way, well, like any other game, they face a certain challenge: if it's mandatory to play a decade old game to get an interesting story in today's release, many people will simply pass over the recent game.  So, it has to drop a lot of things.

I feel the Witcher 3 is sufficiently self contained to bypass the other 2 chapters.

[Valmy]

The Witcher came out about the same time as Mass Effect and that game has aged pretty well

But I guess if it has an Indie look to it.

[Martinus]

The Witcher came out about the same time as Mass Effect and that game has aged pretty well

But I guess if it has an Indie look to it.

Trust us, Valmy. Have we ever lied to you?

[Valmy]

Ok ok then. Just Witcher 3 it is.

[Solmyr]

1 has a very interesting storyline, though. Including a main villain who may not be a villain, depending on your interpretation.

[Valmy]

I will tell you what. Witcher 1 is only 10 bucks on Steam. I will pick it up next Steam sale and see if I like it.

[Norgy]

The Witcher came out about the same time as Mass Effect and that game has aged pretty well

But I guess if it has an Indie look to it.

Trust us, Valmy. Have we ever lied to you?

NEVAH!

Anyone have any advice on how to get the Reasons of State quest?

[Martinus]

Which one is that?

[Norgy]

[spoiler]The one to rid the world of Radovid. My handling of Dijkstra in the Blindingly Obvious quest seems to have made sure I can't get it.[/spoiler]

[Solmyr]

[spoiler]The one to rid the world of Radovid. My handling of Dijkstra in the Blindingly Obvious quest seems to have made sure I can't get it.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Yeah, you are fucked, it's locked out now.[/spoiler]

[Norgy]

Hoddammit.