Mazder wrote:Hmmmm, well now I am getting conflicting opinions on where to start on The Witcher series.
Some say read all the books first.
Some say watch the Netflix show first.
Some say play all three games in order.
Some say just play three and play the others if you feel like it.
Can I just get a straight answer so I am not making a "I started playing Mass Effect at the third one" type of mistake please Witcher fans?!
The TV Show is only okay (honestly I think it actively sucks but a lot of people like it so I'll begrudgingly give it "okay") I've also heard from people who have not played the game or read the books that they found it confusing. This is because the books are set over dozens of years and the fist few books in the series are a bunch of short stories and novellas and not one long connected narrative. But the TV show is trying to cram all that background content into one season in a way that just doesn't work chronologically. So my advice on the show is to either avoid altogether or to use it as a supplement if you like the other stuff.
If you do absolutely nothing else play the Witcher 3. Even without the books or the other games, this is a fantastic game and it is possible to play it without the other content.
My official advice for people is usually read the books first and then play the Witcher 3. This imo is the path that gets you the most enjoyable content with the least clunk or dead weight. There are tons of Easter eggs for people who have read the books and CD Projekt Red does an absolutely fantastic job of writing some of the best characters from the books into the game. I'd give examples but some of them are spoilery for the books. I played about half of the Witcher 3 and had fun but got distracted and moved off. Some time later I read the books and then went back and played the Witcher 3 again. It increased my enjoyment by a significant amount. The books are very good and the game does a fantastic job of carrying on everything in character.
Some caveats.
If you don't like to read novels, the Witcher books are not going to make you magically like novels. They are quite good. They are not some sort of earthshaking experience or Nobel Prize material or whatever. I listened to the audiobooks and the narrator for them is quite good.
The Witcher 1 game is not very memorable, is the least like the books, has the worst writing of anything but the TV show, and has very old fairly monotonous gameplay. It's a perfectly fine game of the time. It is isometric and plays a little bit like Neverwinter Nights (it was literally built with an improved version of Bioware's Aurora engine). If you have a high tolerance for that kind of stuff (I do because I like old isometric games) and are prepared to spend 40-60 hours on it, have at. Even with my like of old games like this, I found it pretty tedious and had to push myself to get through it. You are really not missing much if you skip it.
The Witcher 2 is CD Projekt Red starting to hit its stride. It is also an old game at this point and was their first true action RPG so it has some clunk to it. It is much better written than the Witcher 1 and has an interesting and engaging story with lots of high stakes choices. If you can deal with PS3 era kinda clunky action game controls in order to get a good 30-40 hour story, this one is somewhat worth a try.
There is some carry over from the Withcer 2 to the Witcher 3. There isn't much from the Witcher 1. That being said, there is *way, way, way* more carry over from the books.
So again for the most bang for your buck for least amount of old game clunk, I recommend the books and then the Witcher 3.
If you have fairly high tolerance for old game clunk then books + Witcher 2 & 3.
I personally feel you are missing very little to nothing by avoiding the first game and the show.
@ Vol
This storm was not fucking around. It's why we don't even have basements in this neck of the woods. They would just flood every summer. My biggest concern anymore is actually wind. During Hurricane Harvey it rained 18 inches in 3 hours here and we didn't flood. Total rainfall over the 3ish days the storm parked here was around 35 to 40 inches. It got up to 50 for some areas to the NW of here. If that can't flood us out, I think we are good. However, I have a big Southern Live Oak tree in my yard with huge branches that partially overhand the house. It's a brute of a tree and I doubt a nuclear bomb will knock it over, but a strong enough wind would probably be able to tear some branches out of it.
Anyway, hopefully some water in the basement is the worst it gets.
