You can definitely play 2 without playing 1 and you can get by playing 3 without playing 2. One has to experience it in order to appreciate it, so it's pointless to discuss it here.
Witcher 3 gets completely rid of any sort of gameplay issues one might have, it's one of, if not the best action RPG. Same goes for Witcher 2, except it has much better gameplay in some aspects (sometimes it's still clunky). The story does make it worth it for me, personally, but that's because I've played through it 10 times and simply got used to it. Witcher 1 is quite a mess, gameplay-wise. At 15, it would be a crime against the gaming world to not buy it. You don't really need to play the previous games, though it's nice because you see old friends again, and it is the culmination of the Wild Hunt and Nilfgaard storylines. The fighting is not exceptionnal but nowhere near as bad as the one in the 1 (it's pretty close to how it works in the 2). Not to add, it's also extremely respectful of its customers, being available for a very low price without DRM (and the add-ons are also impressive, being pretty cheap despite offering the equivalent of a full-sized whole game worth of content). Witcher 3 is one of the very best game ever, with a huge open world (HUGE), immersive atmosphere, superb characters and fabulous AAA production values. Witcher 1 was a pleasant semi-indie game with clunky controls and terrible (and very weird) fighting, which was carried by an interesting plot in a (for the time) originally gritty and dirty realistic medieval world. You should definitely at least try it.Īs for Witcher 3.
It was already vastly different from the 1 in term of fighting and controls.
0 kommentar(er)
